DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran
Transcript of DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran
![Page 1: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DFT approximations: Which one to use ?
P. Blaha and F. Tran Institute of Materials Chemistry
TU Wien
![Page 2: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The accuracy of DFT calculations depends on
The particular DFT approximation LDA, various GGAs, meta-GGAs, hybrid-GGAs, vdW-functionals
The particular system and property Solids vs. Molecules specific atoms (heavy or less common element, 3d, 4f systems, …) Binding energy, phase stability geometry electronic structure (gaps, magnetic moments, NMR, IR, …)
The method (code) to solve the KS equations all electron codes pseudopotentials, PAW-versions, …
The person running these calculations convergence of all numerical parameters 2
![Page 3: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The total energy in KS-DFT
Ts: kinetic energy of non-interacting electrons EH: electron-electron Coulomb energy Ven: electron-nucleus Coulomb energy Vnn: nucleus-nucleus Coulomb energy Exc = Ex + Ec: exchange-correlation energy
Ex is in principle known (HF-energy) Ec is unknown must be approximated in practice Ex and Ec must be “compatible approximations” (error cancellation)
3
![Page 4: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The grand challenge:
4
![Page 5: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Testing solids with Rung 1-4 DFT
Test on 44 strongly bound and17 weakly bound solids 15 GGAs 9 meta-GGAs 7 hybrid-GGAs 5 hybrid-mGGAs DFT-D3 13 vdW-DFT
light-heavy elements (Li - Au) metals-semiconductors-insulators
lattice parameters + cohesive energies + atomization energies of molecules (not presented here)
F. Tran et al., JCP 144, 204120 (2016); F.Tran et al., PRM 3, 063602 (2019)
5
![Page 6: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
MARE of a0 and Ecoh (strongly bound solids)
6
GGA m-GGA
hybr-DFT vdW-DFT
TM
![Page 7: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
MRE of a0 and Ecoh
7MRE a0 (%) MRE a0 (%)
MRE
Ec(%
)
M
RE E
c(%
) GGA
hybr-DFT
meta-GGA
DFT+D3
0.5%
5%
![Page 8: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Trends in various groups of solids
8
![Page 9: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
largest errors (reliability):
max. error in a0: GGA < DFT-D3 < hybr-DFT < mGGA (Cs,V)max. error in Ec: DFT-D3 ~ mGGA ~ GGA < hybr-GGA (TM)
9
a0 Ec
a0 Eca0 Ec
mGGA
![Page 10: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
can we understand the trends ?
10
accurate GGAs for solids very inaccurate for binding energies of molecules
GGAs have problems comparing open/dense structures
smax ~1-1.5 in solids(2.0 for alkali metals)
smax much larger in finite systems !
![Page 11: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
success of mGGAs ?
= 0: one and 2-electron regions very close and very far from nuclues = 1: regions of constant density >> 1: regions between closed shell atoms
mGGAs can be more flexible (Cs ??) SCAN is as good as the best GGAs for a0, but gives also
excellent EB for molecules SCAN predicts ground state structures much more reliable
11
BE
Efficient first-principles prediction of solid stability: Towards chemical accuracy. Y.Zhang, … J.Perdew etal., npj Comp. Mat. (2018) 4:9
200 binary compounds
CsCl, SiO2
![Page 12: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
meta-GGAs seem good, but:
12
bcc Fe
• SCAN overestimates magnetic moments and magnetic energies of itinerant systems drastically (D.Singh, S.B.Trickey, ..)
• Other m-GGAs (TPSS, TM) do not do this
![Page 13: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
hybrid-DFT: optimization of
13
MRE a0 (%) MARE a0 (%)M
ARE
Ec(%
)
MRE
Ec(%
)
optimization of can further improve hybrid-DFTs
=0.15
and eg.screened hybrid PBEsol (=0.15) would be optimal, but:
=0.15
![Page 14: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
hybrid-DFT for transition metalsmagnetic moments of Fe (2.8B),
Co (1.9B), and Ni (0.9B) largely overestimated
Pd, Rh, Pt, … become ferro-magnetic using YS-PBE0 (HSE)!
F. Tran et al., PRB 86, 134406 (2012) F. Tran et al., PRMat 2, 023802 (2018) 14
Pt
LDA
LDA
PBE
PBE
NM-HSE
FM-HSE
![Page 15: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
strongly vs. weakly bound solids:
van der Waals - DFT
15
![Page 16: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
van der Waals - DFT
Nonlocal vdW-density functionals (M.Dion et al., PRL 92,246401 (2004):
many combinations of various GGAs for X and C with different kernels probably the most promising methods in terms of cpu-time/performance Kernels proposed in literature:
DRSLL (Dion et al. 2004): derived from ACFDT, no adjustable parameter (Zab=-0.8491)
LMKLL (Lee et al. 2010): DRSLL kernel with Zab=-1.887 (r)VV10 (Vydrov+Van Voorhis 2010, Sabatini et al. 2013): different analytical
form and 2 parameters C and b
Exc = Ex(m)GGA + Ec
LDA/(m)GGA + EcNL
16
![Page 17: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Roman-Perez & Soler method (PRL 2009)
17
but results converge to all-electron densities
![Page 18: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Smoothing of an all-electron density (r)
smoothing depends only on , not on „position“ (core region,..) basis set independent method, forces and potential available
c is the density cutoffn = 1,2, … (the first n derivatives of s are continuous) A = 1 Bohr3n (consistency of units)
which c and n to choose ?
F.Tran et al., PRB 96, 054103 (2017)
18
![Page 19: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Smoothing of depending on n and c
a plane wave expansion converges faster for n=1 no benefit using n>1
a plane wave expansion converges faster for smaller c but too small values of c may influence the results
(n=1,2,3 (c = 1.5 Bohr−3) c = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 Bohr−3 (n=1)
Au
19
Au
![Page 20: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Convergence of c with FFT cutoff Gmax
h-BN (a vdW system):
good convergence already with c ~0.3 Bohr-3 and Gmax>30 Bohr-1 are necessary
tests on many differentsystems show that for usual accuracy we can use globally:
c ~0.3 Bohr-3 and Gmax~30 Bohr-1
which leads to a very fast method. 20
![Page 21: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Tests of 13 different vdW functionals
21
They differ by their semilocal part and their nl-vdW part,combining hard/soft GGAs with hard/soft vdW functionals.
![Page 22: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
weakly bound layered solids Graphite, h-BN, TiS2, TiSe2, MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, HfTe2, WS2, WSe2
22
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 MARE (%)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 MARE (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140MARE (%)
TM is the only acceptable semilocal functionalseveral modern vdW functionals perform well
![Page 23: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
and the winner is:
23
strongly bound solids weakly bound solids
strongly bound solids: SCAN,SCAN+rVV10L,optB86b,rev-vdW-DF2,PBE+rVV10L,vdW-DF-cx
weakly bound solids: PBEsol+rVV10s,rev-vdW-DF2
probably the most balanced functional: rev-vdW-DF2
![Page 24: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
band gaps
(testing the xc-potential)
24
![Page 25: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
band gaps
Eg = I - A (Ionization potential - electron affinity)
KS theory: Eg = EgKS + XC XC derivative discontinuity
GKS theory: XC is included due to the non-local potential
GGAs: (often adapted for bandgaps), but neglecting XC LDA, PBE, Sloc (Vx ~0.3); EV93, AK13, HLE16 (Vx*1.5,Vc*0.5), LB94
hybrid-DFT (in various flavors, eg. HSE ~ YS-PBE0) expensive
GW (in various flavors) very expensive
25
![Page 26: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
band gaps
mGGA-potentials (no corresponding EXC exists) Becke-Johnson potential: approximate Vx
OEP in atoms (2006) TB-mBJ: adapted for band gaps (F.Tran and PB, PRL 102, 226401 (2009)
gets recalculated for specific system
GLLB-SC potential (including XC , Kuisma etal. PRB 82, 115106 (2010))
26
approximate KLI response term
![Page 27: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Exp. vs. theoretical bandgaps
PBE: too small gaps
HSE: good, but too smallgaps for insulators
27D.Koller etal., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 (2013) 435503
variable 0, leads to ~0.6 for LiF and good gaps
![Page 28: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Exp. vs. theoretical bandgaps
TB-mBJ: very good gaps forall materials except Cu+
(CuCl, Cu2O,..)
GLLB-SC: very good gaps formany materials, but:
too small gaps (metal) for smallgap semiconductors (InAs,..) orFeO, and
too large gaps for MgS, MgSe,Fe2O3 (exchange splitting)
28
Fe2O3
FeO
PBE AK13 GLLB-SC HSE TB-mBJMARE (%) 53 24 24 17 15MAE (eV) 1.99 0.75 0.64 0.82 0.47
Cu2OCuBr
CuCl
![Page 29: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
NMR chemical shifts: the slope - problem
hybrid-DFT is the standard method in CS calculations of molecules (Gaussian)
for (ionic) solids YS-PBE0 (HSE) gives a much too largecorrection (smaller mixing ??)
original BJ (OEP-X) works muchbetter
29
![Page 30: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Accuracy of pseudopotential calculations
all-electron vs. pseudopotential (PAW) methods ? We often compare our WIEN2k results with (recent) VASP If VASP was done carefully, usually very good agreement is found for
PBE calculations:
NMR chemical shifts (for light elements): perfect agreement with special PAWs
results for “strange” elements/compounds ?
30
VASP min (+1.5%) VASP min (+10%)
WIEN2k WIEN2k
![Page 31: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
TB-mBJ: WIEN2k vs. VASP
Very good agreement for semiconductors (gap < 5 eV) VASP strongly underestimates mBJ gaps larger than 5 eV
Be carefull when using non-optimized PP (DFT or property)31
PBE mBJ exp.VASP WIEN2k VASP WIEN2k
Si 0.58 0.62 1.20 1.17 1.17
GaAs 0.52 0.57 1.55 1.64 1.52
C 4.14 4.15 4.96 4.93 5.48SiO2 6.01 6.02 8.23 8.98 8.90Ar 8.71 8.71 12.55 13.91 14.15
LiF 9.09 9.09 12.08 12.94 13.60
Ne 11.59 11.58 18.85 22.72 21.7
![Page 32: DFT approximations: Which one to use ? P. Blaha and F. Tran](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051323/627bba459549533ccb736020/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Summary hybrid-DFT is quite ok, but expensive (improves „correlated“ TMO, but
fails for many metallic TMs (fixed !!) and vdW-systems) m-GGAs are more reliable than GGAs (structure prediction, chemical
accuracy ?), work for finite and infinite systems nl-vdW functionals: many of them give either good a0 or Ecoh for weakly
bound solids, only
rev-vdW-DF2 (Hamada, Phys. Rev. B 89, 121103(R) (2014))seems to be the best functional for strongly and weakly bound solids
band gaps: TB-mBJ still most reliable fast method, GLLB-type potentials may offer an alternative
Thank you for your attention !