[Pw_forum] TB09 metaGGA

Fri Oct 31 12:03:50 CET 2014

Dear Yves

Thanks a lot for your comments. Unfortunately, I need a good description of gaps to calculate optical absorption, and hybrid functionals are prohibitive for the supercells that I need to use. That is why I started to try with metaGGA.

I will have a look to the paper you mention (which I did not know, by the way, thanks!) for more ideas...

Take care

Juanjo

From: Yves Ferro 
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 10:20 AM
To: PWSCF Forum 
Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] TB09 metaGGA

Dear Juanjo,  

>From what I can remember:
- the meta-GGA kinetic terms are not saved in order to restart a nscf, at least up to the 5.0 version,
- the tools for building meta-GGA PPs are not available in QE.
However, I'm not sure using meta-GGA pseudos will solve your problem. Meta-GGA are known to have numerical instabilities such as the ones you met, in particular when then electronic density drop to a very low level as probably in your ionic crystal LiF, on the contrary with Si and C that form covalent structures.

You can have a look to this paper you probably know:
E.R. Johnson, JCP 131, 034111 2009

I don't believe a cure to you problem exists at the moment, except by changing the functional to a GGA one.

Best regards,

Yves
. 

Le 31 oct. 2014 à 09:26, Juanjo Meléndez a écrit :

  Hi Pascal

  Thanks for replying. I agree with you that building a PP consistent with the metaGGA functional would solve most of the instability problems. But I do not have *any* experience building PPs (which, by the way, seems to be not trivial to me, even less trivial for metaGGA), so I followed http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.020 and tried the trick. I was just wondering if any general strategy for convergence exists. 

  Regarding point 2, I asked one of the authors of the aforementioned paper and he declared not the have seen such a problem before, so I guess that the kinetic terms are not responsible. I have overcome the problem by using a dense kpoints path already in scf calculations and calculating the bands without the standard intermediate nscf run, but it would be nice if the developers could have a look and check. 

  Again, thank you very much for your interest.

  Juanjo

  Juan J. Meléndez 
  Associate Professor
  Department of Physics · University of Extremadura
  Avda. de Elvas, s/n 06006 Badajoz (Spain)
  Phone: +34 924 28 96 55
  Fax: +34 924 28 96 51
  Email: melendez at unex.es
  Web: http://materiales.unex.es/miembros/personal/jj-melendez/Index.html

  From: Pascal BOULET 
  Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:15 PM
  To: PWSCF Forum 
  Subject: Re: [Pw_forum] TB09 metaGGA

  hello, 

  I have never tried meta-GGA functionals with QE, so I am guessing. 

  For point 1, one possible reason is the inadequacy between the pseudo potential and the functional. I guess you have build a special pseudopotential for this functional.

  Point 2: Could it be because the meta-GGA kinetic terms are not saved in the checkpoint file and hence not readable when doing the nscf?

  Pascal

  "Juanjo Meléndez" <melendez at unex.es> wrote: 
    Hi all

    I am starting to work with metaGGA functionals in QE (v. 5.1 + libXc), following Èric Germaneau and colleagues’ work (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.02.020). I know that metaGGA is little tested, but I would be pleased if somebody could answer a couple of questions:

    1) Convergence is quite tricky. Up to know, I got some results in simple systems using a very small mixing_beta (within 0.01–0.05), not too many bands (just one or two conduction bands, never converged for more bands) and restarting from a previously fully converged calculation. I got results only for carbon, silicon and germanium, never got any convergence for any binary simple compound (like LiF). Does anyone have additional hints for metaGGA calculations to converge?

    2) In addition, I get something wrong with nscf calculations. After convergence of a scf run, I get a list of bands at each k-point, as usual –nothing strange here. Then I made a path of k-points to get the band structure and run a nscf calculation. This finishes fine as well, but the bands are not only different from those from the scf calculations, but also unrealistically high. I am attaching the input and output files for both the scf and nscf runs, as well as a couple of eigenval.xml files taken after nscf. Does anybody know how to manage this? Or could this be a bug in the code?

    Thanks a lot in advance

    Take care

    Juanjo

    Juan J. Meléndez 
    Associate Professor
    Department of Physics · University of Extremadura
    Avda. de Elvas, s/n 06006 Badajoz (Spain)
    Phone: +34 924 28 96 55
    Fax: +34 924 28 96 51
    Email: melendez at unex.es
    Web: http://materiales.unex.es/miembros/personal/jj-melendez/Index.html

    ****************************
    “All those who look stupid actually are, as also are half of those who do not look like” (F. de Quevedo)

    ****************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa. 

_______________________________________________Pw_forum mailing listPw_forum at pwscf.orghttp://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

  >-----------------
  Pascal Boulet
  Aix-Marseille University 
  MADIREL Laboratory
  Avenue Normandie-Niemen 
  13397 Marseille Cedex 20 
  Email: pascal.boulet at univ-amu.fr 
  Tel. +33 413 55 18 10 
  Fax +33 413 55 18 50

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  Pw_forum mailing list
  Pw_forum at pwscf.org
  http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa. 

  _______________________________________________
  Pw_forum mailing list
  Pw_forum at pwscf.org
  http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Pw_forum mailing list
Pw_forum at pwscf.org
http://pwscf.org/mailman/listinfo/pw_forum

---
Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.quantum-espresso.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20141031/ebded180/attachment.html>