mirror of https://gitlab.com/QEF/q-e.git
105 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
105 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
A simplified rotational invariant LDA+U method is presently implemented in
|
|
the pw.x code of the ESPRESSO package. The implemented functional is the
|
|
one proposed, among others, by S.L.Dudarev et al. in PRB, 57, 1505 (1998).
|
|
|
|
A discussion of the method, more details about the current implementation
|
|
and a description of a method to compute the crucial U parameter
|
|
are contained in Matteo Cococcioni's PhD thesis at SISSA and in the
|
|
paper "Linear-response approach to the calculation of the effective"
|
|
interaction parameters in the LDA+U method" by Matteo Cococcioni and
|
|
Stefano de Gironcoli, PRB 71, 035105 (2005).
|
|
|
|
A classical example for LDA+U method is FeO that is incorrectly predicted
|
|
to be a metal by LDA and GGA while it is an insulating antiferromagnetic
|
|
material in real world.
|
|
|
|
In this example we use FeO in order to illustrate some of the input
|
|
variables involved in LDA+U calculations.
|
|
|
|
Computational parameters (as wfc and density cutoff, k-points grid etc.)
|
|
are set so as to make the example reasonably fast and the results are
|
|
NOT meant to be converged in any sense.
|
|
|
|
The first run is just plain LDA calculation for FeO in the rhombohedral
|
|
(antiferromagnetic) cell. There are 2 types of Fe atoms in the input
|
|
because the desired magnetic structure is antiferromagnetic and opposite
|
|
starting_magnetization for the two types is suggested.
|
|
|
|
The lda_plus_u flag is enabled in the input and a tiny value is set
|
|
for the Hubbard_U of the two Iron types in order to force the code to
|
|
write out the occupation matrices for the localized Fe d-levels without
|
|
affecting the LDA result.
|
|
|
|
Looking at the output it is clear that the resulting solution is metallic:
|
|
the "correction for metal" energy term is clearly non zero and the Fermi
|
|
energy falls in the middle of the bands.
|
|
|
|
Coming to the occupation of the localized d-level one can see that
|
|
they are completely filled for the majority spin [spin 1(up) for atom
|
|
3 and spin 2(down) for atom 4] while minority-spin components only are
|
|
partially filled and with FRACTIONAL occupations.
|
|
|
|
In the second run of the example a realistic value for the Hubbard_U
|
|
parameter is adopted and the calculation is repeated. The LDA+U functional
|
|
is now active and disfavors fractional occupations.
|
|
|
|
In spite of that the system still, painfully, converges to a metallic
|
|
solution with similar fractional occupations as the LDA solution.
|
|
This is due to the fact that LDA+U calculations can exhibit---even more
|
|
than spin polarized calculations do---several solutions and one is not
|
|
guaranteed to fall in the desired global minimum automatically.
|
|
Though live!
|
|
|
|
We have to live with that and manage to explore several possibilities by
|
|
suggesting to the system different starting points.
|
|
This can be done by setting the starting occupation matrices of the
|
|
system in a user defined way.
|
|
|
|
This is done by exploiting the starting_ns_eigenvalue input variable as
|
|
in the third calculation of this example.
|
|
|
|
From literature or simple electron counting, one knows that in the
|
|
minority spin component one would like to occupy completely a single state
|
|
leaving the other as empty as possible.
|
|
|
|
So, in the third run, by mean of the starting_ns_eigenvalue variable,
|
|
one enforces the complete occupation of the third eigenvalue of the
|
|
minority spin components of each Fe atomic type.
|
|
|
|
Why the third eigenvalue ? Because from the "standard LDA+U" run we know
|
|
that at the first iteration this is the one that is non-degenerate and
|
|
if occupied completely could lead to an insulating result.
|
|
|
|
This calculation converges rather easily to the desired insulating solution.
|
|
In the output we can see that the "correction for metal" energy term is
|
|
essentially zero and Fermi energy falls in a gap.
|
|
|
|
A comment about energetics:
|
|
Plain LDA calculation has the lowest energy, as expected, since the +U
|
|
term is a positive defined penalty function added to it and energy can
|
|
only go up.
|
|
Notice however that the "standard LDA+U" calculation, the one with
|
|
fractional occupation of minority-spin levels, has an higher energy than
|
|
the "user defined ns" one, where one manages to completely fill the
|
|
desired level. This shows that this later one is indeed the ground state,
|
|
or at least, a better solution of the problem (still higher than plain
|
|
LDA, of course).
|
|
|
|
Looking at the output of these calculation one can notice that even in
|
|
the insulating solution obtained starting with user-defined ns matrices,
|
|
many of the minority spin occupations are still fractional while LDA+U
|
|
functional would like them to be either 0 or 1.
|
|
|
|
This is because the projector on localized d-level used in the calculation
|
|
are based on atomic orbitals that are somehow different from the crystal
|
|
wavefunctions. So some "spurious" d-level occupation comes from Oxygen
|
|
2s and 2p states that protrude toward Iron sites.
|
|
|
|
This is not wrong in general, the important thing is to be consistent
|
|
and use the U parameter appropriate for the chosen projector, but for
|
|
some applications it may be disturbing and one could like to have a
|
|
"better" projector.
|
|
|
|
See PP/examples/example06 for a calculation using localized wannier functions.
|