<div dir="ltr">Dear Katarina,<div><br></div><div>why are you using SHORTRANGE rather than TRUNCATED?</div><div>If you used TRUNCATED, the cutoff radius should be less than  one half of the smallest cell dimension. Your cell is almost cubic (angles close to 90), i.e. the radius should be ca. 4.5. This should work fine.</div><div><br></div><div>Yours,</div><div><br></div><div>Vladimir<br><br>понедельник, 19 ноября 2018 г., 22:30:50 UTC+1 пользователь katarína stančiaková написал:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr">Dear CP2K users,<br><div>I am trying to run HSE06 energy calculation, however, I always got the following warning and I've never been able to get even one step of SCF cycle within 48 hours (a periodic system of 22 atoms running on 48 cores).  <br></div><div><br></div><div>*** WARNING in hfx_types.F:1343 :: Periodic Hartree Fock calculation      ***<br> *** requested with use of a truncated or shortrange potential. The cutoff ***<br> *** radius is larger than half the minimal cell dimension. This may lead  ***<br> *** to unphysical total energies. Reduce the cutoff radius in order to    ***<br> *** avoid possible problems.                     <wbr>                         ***</div><div><br></div><div>To speed up the calculation I am using restart WF from PBE functional, but the same issues appear when I don't use it.  I've tested input files for various CUTOFF_RADIUS values (even very small ones), but without any result. Does anyone know how to solve this issue? <br></div><div><br></div><div>Input files are attached</div><div>Thank you for any help!</div><div><br></div><div>Katarina<br></div><div><br></div>Dňa pondelok, 30. januára 2017 12:50:28 UTC+1 donaldducksdaughter napísal(-a):<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0);min-height:13px"><span></span><br></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** WARNING in hfx_types.F:1342 :: Periodic Hartree Fock calculation      ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** requested with use of a truncated or shortrange potential. The cutoff ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** radius is larger than half the minimal cell dimension. This may lead  ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** to unphysical total energies. Reduce the cutoff radius in order to    ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** avoid possible problems.    </span></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span><br></span></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span><br></span></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** WARNING in hfx_energy_potential.F:600 :: The Kohn Sham matrix is not  ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** 100% occupied. This may result in incorrect Hartree-Fock results. Try ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** to decrease EPS_PGF_ORB and EPS_FILTER_MATRIX in the QS section. For  ***</span></p>
<p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span> *** more information see FAQ: <a href="https://www.cp2k.org/faq:hfx_eps_warning" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" onmousedown="this.href='https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.cp2k.org%2Ffaq%3Ahfx_eps_warning\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGr0gFI8MsYPbf40uHx4SAiFHK6lg';return true;" onclick="this.href='https://www.google.com/url?q\x3dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.cp2k.org%2Ffaq%3Ahfx_eps_warning\x26sa\x3dD\x26sntz\x3d1\x26usg\x3dAFQjCNGr0gFI8MsYPbf40uHx4SAiFHK6lg';return true;">https://www.cp2k.org/faq:hfx_<wbr>eps_warning</a>    ***</span></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span><br></span></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span><br></span></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Dear all,</p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">I'm desperately trying to implement B3LYP on my system and to run a geometry optimisation. The calculations take horribly long (over two weeks) and still haven't finished. My error file is empty, however I seem to get the above two warnings, no matter what I do.</p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">With respect to the first truncated potential warning, I'm using this truncated potential, because I have received an earlier warning telling me to use it and read about it on the cp2k/groups website. I'm using a cutoff of 15.0 angstrom with a box size of 30.0, which should be exactly half and fine. I'm uncertain whether I should just ignore it, because of the responses given in <br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/cp2k/The$20cutoff$20***$20$20***$20radius$20is$20larger$20than$20half$20the$20minimal$20cell$20dimension.$20This$20may$20lead$20$20***$20$20***$20to$20unphysical$20total$20energies.$20Reduce$20the$20cutoff$20radius$20in$20order$20to$20$20$20$20***$20$20***$20avoid$20possible$20problems.$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20%7Csort:relevance/cp2k/g1sFck3SYF8/pVS-MPF-GQAJ" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" onmousedown="this.href='https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/cp2k/The$20cutoff$20***$20$20***$20radius$20is$20larger$20than$20half$20the$20minimal$20cell$20dimension.$20This$20may$20lead$20$20***$20$20***$20to$20unphysical$20total$20energies.$20Reduce$20the$20cutoff$20radius$20in$20order$20to$20$20$20$20***$20$20***$20avoid$20possible$20problems.$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20%7Csort:relevance/cp2k/g1sFck3SYF8/pVS-MPF-GQAJ';return true;" onclick="this.href='https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/cp2k/The$20cutoff$20***$20$20***$20radius$20is$20larger$20than$20half$20the$20minimal$20cell$20dimension.$20This$20may$20lead$20$20***$20$20***$20to$20unphysical$20total$20energies.$20Reduce$20the$20cutoff$20radius$20in$20order$20to$20$20$20$20***$20$20***$20avoid$20possible$20problems.$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20%7Csort:relevance/cp2k/g1sFck3SYF8/pVS-MPF-GQAJ';return true;">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>forum/#!searchin/cp2k/The$<wbr>20cutoff$20***$20$20***$<wbr>20radius$20is$20larger$20than$<wbr>20half$20the$20minimal$20cell$<wbr>20dimension.$20This$20may$<wbr>20lead$20$20***$20$20***$20to$<wbr>20unphysical$20total$<wbr>20energies.$20Reduce$20the$<wbr>20cutoff$20radius$20in$<wbr>20order$20to$20$20$20$20***$<wbr>20$20***$20avoid$20possible$<wbr>20problems.$20$20$20$20$20$20$<wbr>20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$<wbr>20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$<wbr>20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20$20%<wbr>7Csort:relevance/cp2k/<wbr>g1sFck3SYF8/pVS-MPF-GQAJ</a>. If I can ignore it, I reckon I should be using smaller auxiliary basis sets, as in cFIT types, rather than DZVP ones. Would that give me the same result? Additionally, I have already changed all my admms to shorter range basis sets to reduce the BSSE.</p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Regarding the second warning, I have already lowered the EPS Default from 1.0E-10 to 1.0E-12, but I'm still getting the same error. Also changing the poisson solver to WAVELET for my cubic 30x30x30 box would still give me the KS matrix as not 100 % occupied. <a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/cp2k/hfx_energy_potential%7Csort:relevance/cp2k/Xog7jpV5eRk/o254NK-8NGwJ" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" onmousedown="this.href='https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/cp2k/hfx_energy_potential%7Csort:relevance/cp2k/Xog7jpV5eRk/o254NK-8NGwJ';return true;" onclick="this.href='https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/cp2k/hfx_energy_potential%7Csort:relevance/cp2k/Xog7jpV5eRk/o254NK-8NGwJ';return true;">https://groups.google.com/<wbr>forum/#!searchin/cp2k/hfx_<wbr>energy_potential%7Csort:<wbr>relevance/cp2k/Xog7jpV5eRk/<wbr>o254NK-8NGwJ</a></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Any experience or help will be appreciated.</p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Many thanks in advance</p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Julia</p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p><p style="font-size:11px;line-height:normal;font-family:Menlo;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div>