[CP2K:9464] Re: Hybrid functional calculation results show large difference with VASP
S Ling
lingsa... at gmail.com
Thu Sep 21 15:10:10 UTC 2017
Hi
I am not sure how you ran the PBE0 calculation without ADMM using the
MOLOPT basis sets, which were not designed for hybrid DFT calculations.
Hybrid DFT calculations without ADMM for your Cs2InAgCl6 system will use a
lot of memory, and as Prof Hutter suggested earlier, it will also be
100~1000 times slower.
"without ADMM basis sets I have SCF convergence issue if I don't use the
Coulomb truncation method, both for OT and diagonalization, the SCF didn't
tend to converge. Why is that?"
Please have a look at the two papers below, which answer your question:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ct900494g
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2931945
For the PBE0 band gaps calculated using different codes, I can see for
binary systems, the differences are at the order of 0.2 eV or smaller,
which I think is not something totally unexpected, because of the different
HFX implementation strategies, different basis sets and different
pseudopotentials used by the two codes. If you try a third code based on
atomic orbital basis sets, you may also get different answers. In addition,
similar results at PBE level doesn't necessarily mean the numbers at PBE0
level will or should be similar as well. From computational point of
view, compounds involving d block elements are usually more difficult to
deal with than compounds involving only s and p block elements. As you
mentioned earlier, it could simply be the case that the differences in
binary systems added up in your quaternary system. It may be useful to
check what numbers the two codes will give for the ternary system, before
we look at the more complicated quaternary system. The VASP/PROCAR and
CP2K/PDOS analysis will tell us what are the nature of the states at the
top of the valence band and at the bottom of the conduction band, which
will help us to understand the difference between the two codes.
SL
On 21 September 2017 at 14:57, Xiaoming Wang <wxia... at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to add that my PBE0 calculation without ADMM basis sets has been
> done. I tested 10*10*10 Cs2InAgCl6, which is the system of my original
> post. The band gap is 2.52 and 2.50 eV for with and without ADMM. So it
> seems not the ADMM basis problem?
> I have another question that without ADMM basis sets I have SCF
> convergence issue if I don't use the Coulomb truncation method, both for OT
> and diagonalization, the SCF didn't tend to converge. Why is that? (The
> calculation is fine with TC.)
>
> Best,
>
>
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:54:49 AM UTC-4, Xiaoming Wang wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am sorry for the confusing formula. It is actually Cs2InAgCl6, in which
>> Ag is +1. When you are fitting the ADMM basis sets, what's the reference
>> system for Ag? Is it in solid environment? Is it possible for me to fit
>> the ADMM basis myself based on my vasp calculations? Well, maybe it is too
>> difficult for me, since I am new to cp2k. Btw, do the ADMM basis sets
>> depend on the oxidation states of the elements involved? If that's the
>> case, there would be problems dealing with different systems with the same
>> basis sets. Moreover, the oxidation state is an arbitrary quantity
>> depending on the charge partition scheme. The oxidation state may be slight
>> different even for the systems which are assumed to be +1 for a particular
>> element, for example.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Xiaoming
>>
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:17:45 AM UTC-4, S Ling wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Can you confirm the chemical formula of your CsInAgCl system? I looked
>>> through the ICSD database, and the only related compound which I can find
>>> is CsAgInF6, in which Ag is in an uncommon +2 oxidation state (in your
>>> benchmark test, you looked at AgCl, in which Ag is in the common +1
>>> oxidation state). If this is the case for CsInAgCl6, there is a possibility
>>> that your CP2K/PBE0 and VASP/PBE0 calculations may have converged to
>>> slightly different SCF solutions. You can check this by comparing the
>>> orbital occupation numbers from your VASP/PROCAR and from the CP2K/PDOS
>>> analysis. Another possibility is that the ADMM basis sets are indeed not
>>> good enough to describe Ag2+ (I have only considered Ag+ when I was fitting
>>> the ADMM basis sets of Ag).
>>>
>>> SL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 September 2017 at 03:52, Xiaoming Wang <wxi... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Can you see it this time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-f1GOmo2FRic/WcMpJhTURnI/AAAAAAAAGcU/MqO1xDMjsmQIV1PsgFDq5Aq_IqaPdz-CQCLcBGAs/s1600/benchmark.PNG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 10:45:10 PM UTC-4, Matt W wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I only see the check for InCl3, not the main system?
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 10:36:15 AM UTC+8, Xiaoming Wang
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually I also did the calculation for a supercell of 21*21*21 with
>>>>>> 320 atoms. PBE0 without TC are also tested, please see my benchmark tests
>>>>>> in previous post (attachment in reply to Ling).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Xiaoming
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 10:27:48 PM UTC-4, Matt W wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That ADMM basis is already pretty large, so whilst it might be the
>>>>>>> problem, first I'd check the cell size.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you build a cell about 15 x 15 x 15 A or larger to allow you to
>>>>>>> extend the range of the hybrid out to 6 or 7 A?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are truncating at about 5.25 A, which might not be enough to be
>>>>>>> fully converged (note VASP won't be doing this as it works in K space).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:36:29 AM UTC+8, Xiaoming Wang
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ling,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I have attached my benchmark results
>>>>>>>> here. Based on my tests, it seems that the ADMM basis set size is not so
>>>>>>>> important for ionic crystals. One can get reasonable results even with
>>>>>>>> smallest basis sets. Btw, the cutoff and rel_cutoff used are well converged
>>>>>>>> values for my target property. So I think there is still room to improve
>>>>>>>> the ADMM basis for Ag and In (with semicore d states in the valence). To
>>>>>>>> check whether it is the problem of Ag and In ADMM basis, the simplest way
>>>>>>>> is to do the PBE0 calculations without ADMM. But the calculation takes me
>>>>>>>> too long time, as also pointed out by Juerg. I suspect if it is possible to
>>>>>>>> do HFX without ADMM using MOLOPT basis sets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Xiaoming
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 6:20:09 AM UTC-4, S Ling wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure whether you are using the same ADMM basis sets (see
>>>>>>>>> your initial input) for these new test calculations. One thing which I can
>>>>>>>>> see is that you are not using the largest available ADMM basis sets for
>>>>>>>>> some of the elements, e.g. the largest available ADMM basis sets for Cl, Ag
>>>>>>>>> and In are pFIT3, FIT12 and FIT13, respectively. Taking In as an example,
>>>>>>>>> the FIT13 ADMM basis set of In contains more p and d functions than FIT11,
>>>>>>>>> which may be important for your system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mentioned a few different functionals, including PBE, PBE0 and
>>>>>>>>> HSE06, and you have run quite a lot of benchmark tests. It would help if
>>>>>>>>> you can tabulate all the numbers you have got (including the reference), so
>>>>>>>>> we can understand your problem better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition, I can see you're using a CUTOFF of 250 Ry. Please
>>>>>>>>> also check whether your calculation is converged with respect to this
>>>>>>>>> parameter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please also keep in mind that CP2K and VASP use different
>>>>>>>>> pseudopotentials and basis sets. I wouldn't expect the two codes to give
>>>>>>>>> the same numbers for your target properties. If you look into literatures,
>>>>>>>>> you will also find people reporting different numbers for the same property
>>>>>>>>> using the same method and code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>> 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 https://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+uns... at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to cp... at googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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/20170921/e204c766/attachment.htm>
More information about the CP2K-user
mailing list