论文标题
验证固体电子带隙的伪电位计算
Validation of pseudopotential calculations for the electronic band gap of solids
论文作者
论文摘要
如今,伪电势功能理论计算构成了解决固态电子问题的标准方法。 这些依赖于使用几乎没有流行的半局部交易所相关功能的全电子原子计算构建的分布式伪电势表,而基于更现代功能的伪能力(例如,元与GGGA和混合功能),或用于多体制方法,例如$ GW $,通常是不可用的。 因此,采用使用不一致的交换相关功能创建的伪电势已成为一种常见实践。 我们的目的是系统地量化当执行跨职能伪电势计算时,确定电子带隙的误差。为此,我们比较了使用规范支持的伪电位或投影仪的波浪方法获得的带隙与473个固体的大数据集的全电子计算。我们特别关注专门针对带隙计算的密度函数。 平均而言,绝对误差约为0.1 eV,在5-10 \%范围内产生绝对相对误差。考虑到功能的选择造成的典型错误通常更大,我们得出的结论是,选择不一致的伪能力的效果对于大多数应用而言是无害的。 但是,我们发现绝对误差可能大于1 eV的特定情况,或者其他相对误差可能构成频带间隙的很大一部分的情况。
Nowadays pseudopotential density-functional theory calculations constitute the standard approach to tackle solid-state electronic problems. These rely on distributed pseudopotential tables that were built from all-electron atomic calculations using few popular semi-local exchange-correlation functionals, while pseudopotentials based on more modern functionals, like meta-GGA and hybrid functionals, or for many-body methods, such as $GW$, are often not available. Because of this, employing pseudopotentials created with inconsistent exchange-correlation functionals has become a common practice. Our aim is to quantify systematically the error in the determination of the electronic band gap when cross-functional pseudopotential calculations are performed. To this end we compare band gaps obtained with norm-conserving pseudopotentials or the projector-augmented wave method with all-electron calculations for a large dataset of 473 solids. We focus in particular on density functionals that were designed specifically for band-gap calculations. On average, the absolute error is about 0.1 eV, yielding absolute relative errors in the 5-10\% range. Considering that typical errors stemming from the choice of the functional are usually larger, we conclude that the effect of choosing an inconsistent pseudopotential is rather harmless for most applications. However, we find specific cases where absolute errors can be larger than 1 eV, or others where relative errors can amount to a large fraction of the band gap.