[Wien] Questions about difference electron density map

[Tran, Fabien]

Hi,

Ideally, the integrated density difference should be zero, but due to numerical imprecision it won't be exactly the case. Since I don't know exactly what you want to do and the procedure you want to follow, it's difficult to give you more advice. Just be aware of two things:

1) Integrating accurately a quantity generated from lapw5 (uniform 3D grid) is difficult (or maybe impossible), because  the grid close to the nuclei (where the density is very spiky) needs to be extra dense. But, this should not be a problem for a density difference because the spikes of the two densities should cancel such that the difference can be integrated easily.

2) There is no particular problem at the edge of the cell. But, by integrating one should not count twice the same points: those which are on the opposite planes of the cell.

​

________________________________
From: Wien <wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at> on behalf of Ding Peng <ding.peng at monash.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 12:45 PM
To: A Mailing list for WIEN2k users
Subject: Re: [Wien] Questions about difference electron density map

Dear Dr Fabien Tran,

I had tried your suggestions and it indeed has worked. The difference charge density map looks reasonable. Many thanks for that!

Can I ask you a question that if the net difference charge density in the unit cell (i.e. summation of the difference charge densities within the 3D unit cell) has to be zero? Because I know the errors introduced by the density samplings may be presented in LAPW5, especially at the edge of the unit cell. Also it can be affected by how many points are used to sample the grid-segment of the unit cell when using lapw5. I don't know if this sampling issue will affect the correctness of the charge density as well as the net difference charge density in the unit cell.

Many thanks,
Ding



On 3 May 2020, at 2:50 am, Tran, Fabien <fabien.tran at tuwien.ac.at<mailto:fabien.tran at tuwien.ac.at>> wrote:

If I'm not wrong (I have never tried this combination of keywords), you can do that by specifying
DIFF ADD
at the 6th line of case.in5(c). See Sec. 8.14.3 of the user's guide for explanation.​

________________________________
From: Wien <wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at<mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>> on behalf of Ding Peng <ding.peng at monash.edu<mailto:ding.peng at monash.edu>>
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 6:41 PM
To: A Mailing list for WIEN2k users
Subject: Re: [Wien] Questions about difference electron density map

Dear Dr Fabien Tran,

Thanks for your reply. Very clear explanation as it is always.

I got another question about the difference charge density calculation.
For magnetic materials (including ferromagnetic, anti ferromagnetic or quadrupolar-antiferromagntic materials etc.), what I can think of to calculate the difference charge density is

1) calculate the valence charge density (option “rho”) for spin-up electrons (x lapw5 -up)

2) calculate the valence charge density (Option “rho” for spin-down electrons (x lapw5 -dn)

3) sum 1 and 2 and subtract them by the superposed atomic valence densities (option “Over”.


Can I ask if this is correct way to do the calculation of the difference charge density for magnetic materials? and also if there is an automatic option to directly calculate it in Wien2k “, just like option “Diff” for non-magnetic materials ?

Many thanks,
Ding

On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 12:16 am, Tran, Fabien <fabien.tran at tuwien.ac.at<mailto:fabien.tran at tuwien.ac.at>> wrote:
As I already said in my previous email, the last column is the occupancy.
An occupancy of zero means that the corresponding band is not included
in the valence electron density (stored case.clmval, that is used for plotting).
"Energy to separate semicore and valence states​" seems to be a prediction
of what it means.


From: Wien <wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at<mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>> on behalf of Ding Peng <ding.peng at monash.edu<mailto:ding.peng at monash.edu>>
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 5:23 PM
To: A Mailing list for WIEN2k users
Subject: Re: [Wien] Questions about difference electron density map

Dear Dr Fabien Tran,


Thanks for your reply. Actually, I set the Emin as -0.2 Ry, which means I discarded the states that are below -0.2 Ry. Could I ask you if the last number of the "band lines" is the occupancy?  If it is 0.0000000D+00 (double precision of 0), does  it mean that the corresponding band is included as the valence state? Also I noticed there is a line "Energy to separate semicore and valence states: -3.971792594507138E-002". Could  I ask if the value "-3.971792594507138E-002" in this line the predicted Emin by Wien2k?


Sorry for asking so many questions in this email.


Best regards,
Ding



On 2 May 2020, at 10:12 pm, Tran, Fabien <fabien.tran at tuwien.ac.at<mailto:fabien.tran at tuwien.ac.at>> wrote:



From your output2, we can see that you discarded the states that are below -0.3 Ry



(the occupancy in the last column is zero for them) to calculate the electron  density.
You have to check that the number of remaining electrons used to calculate the
valence electron density is the same as the number of electrons obtained from lstart to
create the valence electron density from superimposed ​atomic  densities.



From: Wien <wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at<mailto:wien-bounces at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>>  on behalf of Ding Peng <ding.peng at monash.edu<mailto:ding.peng at monash.edu>>
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 1:11 PM
To: A Mailing list for WIEN2k users
Subject: Re: [Wien] Questions about difference electron density map





Dear Prof Peter Blaha and other WIEN2k experts,



Many thanks for your advice. Your explanation is very clear and I can understand most of them. But I still get some questions to ask:





By following your advices, I've checked the band ranges in output2 and they are :

 ​

 Compared to the information in case.scf1, I was thinking the Emin should be set slightly above  the energy band 10, which is from -0.3524 to -0.2916 (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does that mean the Emin of the whole valence electrons should be set slightly above Emax of energy band 10, which is -0.2916?


Many thanks,
Ding​            _______________________________________________
Wien  mailing list
Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at<mailto:Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH  the MAILING-LIST at:  http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html


_______________________________________________
Wien mailing list
Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at<mailto:Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html
_______________________________________________
Wien mailing list
Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at<mailto:Wien at zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at>
http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/mailman/listinfo/wien
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at:  http://www.mail-archive.com/wien@zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/index.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://zeus.theochem.tuwien.ac.at/pipermail/wien/attachments/20200504/a011956a/attachment.html>