negative homo - lumo gap
Ian Hamilton
ianpha... at gmail.com
Mon Feb 13 16:58:23 UTC 2017
Hi Marcella,
One of my students has encountered this problem. He tried changing the OT
and increasing the number of MOs (we don't know what you mean by "smearing
the occupation numbers around the Fermi energy") but it didn't correct the
problem. I’m posting this on his behalf because he was unable to- he got a
message that he had “limited access to public groups in his domain.”
Do you (or anyone else) have another suggestion? In his pdos files all the
levels look fine except for the HOMO and LUMO.
>From his output:
Fermi Energy [eV] : -5.966796
Lowest Eigenvalues of the unoccupied subspace spin 1
-----------------------------------------------------
Reached convergence in 149 iterations
-0.23489989 -0.21167052 -0.18538586 -0.17943768
-0.13796253 -0.13007839
HOMO - LUMO gap [eV] : -0.425155
ENERGY| Total FORCE_EVAL ( QS ) energy (a.u.):
-1076.972424168399129
Best regards,
Ian Haminton
On Sunday, November 22, 2009 at 6:13:06 AM UTC-5, Claudio wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> sometimes after I converge a calculation to an accuracy of say 1.0E-5
> I get things like
>
> HOMO - LUMO gap [eV] : -0.980594
>
> This is because the Homo Energy is 0.22417642 and the Lumo Energy is
> 0.18814027 in AU.
>
> I have requested the same accuracy for homo and lumo and have added
> enough iterations to the lumo calculation loop to make sure the
> program claims it is converged. I am using the OT method. How do I
> prevent this from happening? I mean how do I ensure that the
> calculation yields Lumo energies that are higher than the homo energy?
>
>
> Sorry to bother you and thanks for your help!
>
> Claudio
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.cp2k.org/archives/cp2k-user/attachments/20170213/b773a863/attachment.htm>
More information about the CP2K-user
mailing list