edoc

Reproducibility in density functional theory calculations of solids

Lejaeghere, Kurt and Bihlmayer, Gustav and Bjoerkman, Torbjoern and Blaha, Peter and Bluegel, Stefan and Blum, Volker and Caliste, Damien and Castelli, Ivano E. and Clark, Stewart J. and Dal Corso, Andrea and de Gironcoli, Stefano and Deutsch, Thierry and Dewhurst, John Kay and Di Marco, Igor and Draxl, Claudia and Dulak, Marcin and Eriksson, Olle and Flores-Livas, Jose A. and Garrity, Kevin F. and Genovese, Luigi and Giannozzi, Paolo and Giantomassi, Matteo and Goedecker, Stefan and Gonze, Xavier and Granaes, Oscar and Gross, E. K. U. and Gulans, Andris and Gygi, Francois and Hamann, D. R. and Hasnip, Phil J. and Holzwarth, N. A. W. and Iusan, Diana and Jochym, Dominik B. and Jollet, Francois and Jones, Daniel and Kresse, Georg and Koepernik, Klaus and Kuecuekbenli, Emine and Kvashnin, Yaroslav O. and Locht, Inka L. M. and Lubeck, Sven and Marsman, Martijn and Marzari, Nicola and Nitzsche, Ulrike and Nordstrom, Lars and Ozaki, Taisuke and Paulatto, Lorenzo and Pickard, Chris J. and Poelmans, Ward and Probert, Matt I. J. and Refson, Keith and Richter, Manuel and Rignanese, Gian-Marco and Saha, Santanu and Scheffler, Matthias and Schlipf, Martin and Schwarz, Karlheinz and Sharma, Sangeeta and Tavazza, Francesca and Thunstroem, Patrik and Tkatchenko, Alexandre and Torrent, Marc and Vanderbilt, David and van Setten, Michiel J. and Van Speybroeck, Veronique and Wills, John M. and Yates, Jonathan R. and Zhang, Guo-Xu and Cottenier, Stefaan. (2016) Reproducibility in density functional theory calculations of solids. Science, 351 (6280). 1415-U81.

Full text not available from this repository.

Official URL: http://edoc.unibas.ch/53945/

Downloads: Statistics Overview

Abstract

The widespread popularity of density functional theory has given rise to an extensive range of dedicated codes for predicting molecular and crystalline properties. However, each code implements the formalism in a different way, raising questions about the reproducibility of such predictions. We report the results of a community-wide effort that compared 15 solid-state codes, using 40 different potentials or basis set types, to assess the quality of the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof equations of state for 71 elemental crystals. We conclude that predictions from recent codes and pseudopotentials agree very well, with pairwise differences that are comparable to those between different high-precision experiments. Older methods, however, have less precise agreement. Our benchmark provides a framework for users and developers to document the precision of new applications and methodological improvements.
Faculties and Departments:05 Faculty of Science > Departement Physik > Physik > Physik (Goedecker)
UniBasel Contributors:Goedecker, Stefan
Item Type:Article, refereed
Article Subtype:Research Article
Publisher:American Association for the Advancement of Science
ISSN:0036-8075
e-ISSN:1095-9203
Note:Publication type according to Uni Basel Research Database: Journal article
Identification Number:
Last Modified:22 Feb 2017 13:24
Deposited On:22 Feb 2017 13:24

Repository Staff Only: item control page