What are the Different Approaches for DFT and How Do I Choose the Right One?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aihaike
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the various approaches to Density Functional Theory (DFT), particularly focusing on the choice of basis sets and pseudopotentials for computational methods in solid-state physics. Participants explore the implications of different methods, such as plane waves, augmented plane waves, and pseudopotentials, while addressing the complexities faced by beginners in understanding these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Eric expresses confusion about the DFT method and the choice between different pseudopotentials, such as soft pseudopotentials and projector augmented wave (PAW) methods.
  • Some participants propose that augmented plane waves (APW) are the most accurate DFT basis set, while noting that they are computationally slow due to energy dependence.
  • It is mentioned that linearized augmented plane waves (LAPW) can eliminate energy dependence and are implemented in certain codes, which are also considered accurate.
  • Participants explain that pseudopotentials are generated by solving the DFT problem for isolated atoms and are dependent on the exchange-correlation functional used.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of generating pseudopotentials when using plane wave codes, particularly due to the rapid variation of wavefunctions near atomic cores.
  • Some participants argue that plane waves and pseudopotentials are not universally the best choice for all crystal states, suggesting that LAPW or local orbitals may be better in certain scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best choice of basis sets and pseudopotentials for DFT calculations, indicating that there is no consensus on a single "best" approach. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal methods for various materials and calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity and variability in DFT methods, noting that the choice of pseudopotentials and basis sets can depend on specific material properties and computational goals. There are also references to the limitations of certain methods, such as the computational challenges posed by large atomic numbers.

aihaike
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I trying to get a better understanding of the DFT method, but the more I read the more I'm confused.
Well, for crystal states it seems that the use of the plane wave with pseudo potentials is the "best" choice.
But yet we have to choice between soft pseudo potentials or projector augmented plane waves for example.
And what about regular augmented plane waves?
Then, I may miss something here but I don't get the meaning of "LDA pseudopotential". Why a pseudopotential depends on the definition of a exchange-correlation functional?
Why do we need to generate pseudopotentials ?
Again, I'm just a beginner of DFT methods.
I knows it depends on what material we study, on we want to compute, but I need to be clear about what those things really mean and there are so many paper work about that. As a beginner it's very easy to get lost.

Eric.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Augmented plane waves (APW) is generally regarded as the most accurate DFT basis set, however it's a slow method because the basis functions are energy dependent. The basis functions can be linearized to get rid of the energy dependence in the LAPW method, which is also quite accurate and implemented in codes like Wien2k and Elk. Also there are techniques of using local orbitals for basis functions, like is used in the FPLO code.

Pseudopotentials are generated by solving the DFT problem for an isolated atom with all its electrons. An exchange-correlation functional is required for that, so each pseudopotential that you generate is labeled by the xc that was used to generate it.

Pseudopotentials must be generated when using planewave codes. Near atomic cores, the wavefunctions vary rapidly in space to maintain orthogonality with core wavefunctions. To represent that in planewaves would require a very large number of planewaves, so much so that it can be computationally difficult, especially for large atomic numbers. So the pseudopotential is used to remove the core wavefunctions from the calculation and the nodes that exist in the valence wavefunctions. This is an approximation technique which is not systematic, so that is why you get many different approaches for creating pseudopotentials.

Planewaves/pseudopotentials aren't the "best" choice for crystal states in general. They can be the best choice for certain things, and there are times when LAPW or local orbitals are better choices.
 
Dear Kanato,

Thank you for your clear answer.
I suppose codes where PW are implemented also do LAPW?
 
No, not usually. But these days most PW codes do PAW though.
 
ok, thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K