ENCUTGW: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
in exactly the same manner as {{TAG|ENCUT}} does for the orbitals. | in exactly the same manner as {{TAG|ENCUT}} does for the orbitals. | ||
In the GW case, updates of the response function dominate the computational work load: | In the GW case, updates of the response function dominate the computational work load: | ||
<math>\frac{1}{\Omega} \sum_{n,n',{\mathbf{k}}}2 w_{{\mathbf{k}}} | |||
(f_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} - f_{n{\mathbf{k}}}) | (f_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}} - f_{n{\mathbf{k}}}) | ||
\times \frac{\langle \psi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}| e^{-i ({\mathbf{q}}+{\mathbf{G}}){\mathbf{r}}} | \psi_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}\rangle | \times \frac{\langle \psi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}| e^{-i ({\mathbf{q}}+{\mathbf{G}}){\mathbf{r}}} | \psi_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}\rangle | ||
\langle \psi_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}| e^{i ({\mathbf{q}}+{\mathbf{G}}'){\mathbf{r'}}} | \psi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\rangle} | \langle \psi_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}| e^{i ({\mathbf{q}}+{\mathbf{G}}'){\mathbf{r'}}} | \psi_{n{\mathbf{k}}}\rangle} | ||
{ \epsilon_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{n{\mathbf{k}}} - \omega - i \eta }- | { \epsilon_{n'{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}}-\epsilon_{n{\mathbf{k}}} - \omega - i \eta }- </math> | ||
The {{TAG|ENCUTGW}} controls how many ${\mathbf{G}}$ vectors are included in the | |||
the response function $\chi_{{\mathbf{q}}}^0 ({\mathbf{G}}, {\mathbf{G}}', \omega)$. | the response function $\chi_{{\mathbf{q}}}^0 ({\mathbf{G}}, {\mathbf{G}}', \omega)$. | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 14 January 2017
ENCUTGW = [real] (energy cutoff for response function
Default: ENCUTGW = ENCUT
The parameter ENCUTGW controls the basis set for the response functions in exactly the same manner as ENCUT does for the orbitals. In the GW case, updates of the response function dominate the computational work load: The ENCUTGW controls how many ${\mathbf{G}}$ vectors are included in the the response function $\chi_{{\mathbf{q}}}^0 ({\mathbf{G}}, {\mathbf{G}}', \omega)$.
Tests have shown that choosing {\tt ENCUTGW}={\tt ENCUT} yields essentially exact results. In principle, however, the response function contains contributions up to twice the plane wave cutoff $G_{\rm cut}$ (see Sec. \ref{algo-wrap}). Since the diagonal of the dielectric matrix converges rapidly to one, such a large cutoff is never actually required (the present release has only been tested for {\tt ENCUTGW} $\le$ {\tt ENCUT}, and might crash if {\tt ENCUTGW} $\ge$ {\tt ENCUT}). Furthermore, in most cases, it is even possible to set {\tt ENCUTGW} to a value between 150 to 200 eV, and even 100 eV gives usually QP shifts that are accurate to within a few hundreds of an eV (0.01-0.02 eV). This can help to speed up the calculations significantly and reduces the memory requirements substantially.
\index{INCAR!P!PRECFOCK|textit}
The flag {\tt PRECFOCK} (Sec.~\ref{incar-precfock}),
determines the FFT grid in all GW (and Hartree-Fock) related routines.
For small systems (which are often dominated by FFT operations),
it can have a significant impact on the compute time for
QP calculations. For large systems, the FFT's usually do not
dominating the computational work load and savings are expected to be small for {\tt PRECFOCK = fast }.
QP shifts are usually not very sensitive to the setting of {\tt PRECFOCK}
(and it therefore does not harm to set {\tt PRECFOCK = fast }), whereas for
RPA calculations we recommend to set {\tt PRECFOCK= normal} to avoid numerical errors.