[CP2K:5567] Re: Geometry optimization by using LIBXC caused no SCF iteration with error NaN

Geoffrey Wood ge.f... at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 12:11:32 UTC 2014


Hi Juerg,
 
Thanks, I didn't realize this was a known bug.   This makes the comparisons 
I was trying to make difficult, as GPW does not handle all-electron 
calculations. Do you have any suggestions to get around this?
 
Cheers, Geoff.
 
 
 

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:16:38 AM UTC-4, jgh wrote:

> Hi 
>
> so this is the GAPW bug for meta-functionals. As I have mentioned 
> before, there is an inconsistency in the way the kinetic energy density 
> is handled in the GAPW one-center terms. 
>
> regards 
>
> Juerg 
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Juerg Hutter                         Phone : ++41 44 635 4491 
> Institut für Chemie C                FAX   : ++41 44 635 6838 
> Universität Zürich                   E-mail: hut... at chem.uzh.ch 
> <javascript:> 
> Winterthurerstrasse 190 
> CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland 
> --------------------------------------------------------------- 
>
> -----cp... at googlegroups.com <javascript:> wrote: ----- 
> To: cp... at googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
> From: Geoffrey Wood 
> Sent by: cp... at googlegroups.com <javascript:> 
> Date: 07/28/2014 10:43PM 
> Subject: Re: [CP2K:5567] Re: Geometry optimization  by using LIBXC caused 
> no SCF iteration with error NaN 
>
> I ran some others these are the results: 
>   
>                Key Words        %HF    CP2K    G09    diff (kJ/mol)       
>  XC_GGA_XC_HCTH_407        0    -76.40895    -76.40918    -0.6       
>  XC_HYB_GGA_XC_B97_1        0.21    -76.39399    -76.39374    0.7       
>  XC_MGGA_C_M06_L        0    -67.68914                XC_MGGA_X_M06_L       
>  0    -76.04416                XC_MGGA_C_M06_L    XC_MGGA_X_M06_L    0   
>  -76.43029    -76.41007    53.1        XC_HYB_MGGA_XC_MPWB1K        0.44   
>  SCF crash    -76.38142         
>   
>   
> The MGGA seems to be causing the problems. 
>   
>   
> Thanks, Geoff. 
>   
>   
>
> On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:59:38 AM UTC-4, Geoffrey Wood wrote: 
>   
> Hello 
>   
> I am using GAPW and the cutoff is 1000 (not 10000, sorry for the error).  
> I used such a large cutoff because I was testing the convergence behavior 
> of the energy wrt cutoff (I tried 200, 400, 800, 1000 and 4000) in the end 
> I reported the 1000 numbers above as it seemed to give convergence to 
> ~10^-5 Hartree, At this level the difference between the B3LYP and PBE0 
> energies between the two programs is very small.  Knowing that GAPW is a 
> different approximation to using the Gaussian basis sets this difference is 
> to be expected (as reported in the original paper). Using the same settings 
> the difference between the M06 energies seems to be rather large, which is 
> the concern I have. ll try the M06L functional and provide feedback. 
>   
> Thanks, Geoff. 
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> On Monday, July 28, 2014 10:44:49 AM UTC-4, jgh wrote:Hi 
>   
> Are you running GPW or GAPW? With that cutoff one never knows. 
>   
> M06L might be another good test. 
>   
> Juerg   
> -------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Juerg Hutter                         Phone : ++41 44 635 4491 
> Institut für Chemie C                FAX   : ++41 44 635 6838 
> Universität Zürich                   E-mail: hut... at chem.uzh.ch 
> Winterthurerstrasse 190 
> CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland 
> --------------------------------------------------------------- 
>   
> -----cp... at googlegroups.com wrote: ----- 
> To: cp... at googlegroups.com 
> From: Geoffrey Wood   
> Sent by: cp... at googlegroups.com 
> Date: 07/28/2014 03:27PM 
> Subject: Re: [CP2K:5563] Re: Geometry optimization  by using LIBXC caused 
> no SCF iteration with error NaN 
>   
> Hello- 
>   
> Thanks for everyone's comments. I discovered that part of the problem I 
> was having was an error in my "arch" file. With that fixed I have compiled 
> and linked CP2K (SVN 14141) libint (1.1.4) and libxc (2.1.0) and tested the 
> XC libraries.  These are the results: 
>   
> system: 
> CUTOFF=10000 
>   
>     O   0.000000    0.000000   -0.065587 
>     H   0.000000   -0.757136    0.520545 
>     H   0.000000    0.757136    0.520545 
>     &KIND H 
>       BASIS_SET 6-31Gxx 
>       POTENTIAL ALL 
>     &END KIND 
>     &KIND O 
>       BASIS_SET 6-31Gxx 
>       POTENTIAL ALL 
>     &END KIND 
>   
>   
> XC_HYB_GGA_XC_PBEH (+25% HF x),  CP2k:  -76.33577878183063  another 
> popular QM code:  -76.3357457 
> XC_HYB_GGA_XC_B3LYP (+20% HF x), CP2k: -76.41801937267151  another popular 
> QM code: -76.4180549 
> XC_MGGA_C_M06 (+27% HF x), CP2K: -70.00722600780877 
> XC_MGGA_X_M06 (+27% HF x) CP2K: -76.02248099520743 
> XC_MGGA_X_M06 XC_MGGA_C_M06 (+27% HF x): CP2K:  -76.42254621238931  
> another popular QM code: -76.3842635 
> XC_HYB_MGGA_XC_M06 (+27% HF x): CP2K (crashes on SCF) 
> XC_HYB_MGGA_XC_M06 (no HF x included): CP2K (crashes on SCF) 
>   
> So there still seems to be some problems with M06. I.e. the hybrid-meta XC 
> doesn't seem to work and trying to combine the X and C parts together gives 
> the incorrect energy.  Thoughts? 
>   
> Geoff 
>   
>   
>   
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 8:22:08 AM UTC-4, Geoffrey Wood wrote: 
> Hi Matthias and Michael.. 
>   
> Thanks for your comments. I have previously run cp2k 2.5.1 with libint 
> 1.1.5 and tested it without any problems i.e. correct energies, gradients 
> 2nd derivatives, BOMD using GGAs, hyrbrid GGAs, with and without libxc.  It 
> is only with the current trunk that I'm running into problems.  I will 
> re-link with libint 1.1.4 and provide feedback. 
>   
> Thanks again. 
>   
> Geoff. 
>   
>   
>   
> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:58:59 AM UTC-4, Michael wrote:On Thu, Jul 
> 24, 2014 at 07:43:03AM -0700, Matthias Krack wrote:   
> > you write that you compiled libint v1.1.5, but CP2K is only validated 
> for   
> > libint v1.1.4.   
>   
> As a data point, Debian/Ubuntu ships libint-1.1.4 and we have not seen   
> any problems with that, including building cp2k-2.5.1 against it.     
>   
> Michael   
>     
>   --   
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "cp2k" group. 
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to cp2k+... at googlegroups.com. 
>  To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com. 
>  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k. 
>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>   
>   
>   -- 
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "cp2k" group. 
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to cp2k+... at googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
>  To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
>
>  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cp2k. 
>  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>   
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20140729/8ffdd142/attachment.htm>


More information about the CP2K-user mailing list