GGAs: A History - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

GGAs: A History

Description:

Issue with KE: Used n5/3. Seemed good for absolute energies ... Lee Yang Parr. Different approach based on accurate wave functions for the Helium atom. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:75
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: patrick295
Category:
Tags: ggas | history | parr

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: GGAs: A History


1
GGAs A History
  • P Briddon

2
Thomas Fermi
  • First attempt to write En.
  • An early DFT.
  • Issue with KE Used n5/3
  • Seemed good for absolute energies
  • Not accurate enough for energy differences.

3
Hohenberg and Kohn (1964)
  • Formal proof that can write En.
  • The real problem What is the functional?
  • No progress towards the LDA
  • Instead followed on from TF by attempting to
    develop Tn by gradient expansion.

4
Kohn-Sham (1965)
  • Realised that Tn not accurate enough.
  • Instead wrote Tn TsnDT
  • Ts found from Kohn-Sham states.
  • DT incorporated into what is left the exchange
    correlation energy.

5
LDA
  • Used by physicists for 40 years.
  • Write
  • exc(n) for homogenous electron gas.
  • exchange-correlation energy per electron
  • Assumption grad n is small in some sense.
  • Accurate for nearly homogeneous system and for
    limit of large density.

6
Limitations
  • Band gap problem
  • Overbinding (cohesive energies 10-20 error).
  • High spin states.
  • Hydrogen bonds/weak interactions
  • Graphite

7
GEA
  • Early method attempt to go beyond the LDA.
  • Based on the idea that for slowly varying
    density, we could develop an expansion
  • In fact the first order term is zero.
  • Made things much worse.
  • Why?

8
Exchange-Correlation Hole
  • Due to phenomena of exchange there is a depletion
    of density (of the same spin) around each
    electron.
  • Mathematically described as
  • The exchange correlation energy written as

9
Properties of the hole
  • Subject of much research.
  • The LDA must obey these.
  • The GEA does not need to.

10
Why is this important?
  • Huge error made to the integral would occur if
    the hole is not normalised correctly.
  • The LDA has this correct it is the correct
    expression for a proper physical system.
  • Gunnarsson and Lundqvist 1976.
  • In fact, only need the spherical average of the
    hole is needed.

11
GGA idea
  • A brute force fix.
  • If rx(r,r)gt0, set it to zero.
  • If sum rule violated, truncate the hole.
  • Resulting expressions look like

12
Exchange GGA
  • Note that ss is large when
  • Gradient is big
  • n is low (exponential tails surfaces)
  • ss is small when
  • Gradient is small
  • n is large (including core regions)
  • Sometimes written as enhancement factor.

13
2 Flavours
  • Chemistry stable e.g. Becke (B88)
  • Empirical
  • b0.0042, fitted to exchange energies of He ...
    Rn.
  • Gives correct asymptotic form in exponential
    tails.

14
A second flavour PBE96
  • The physics stable
  • Principled, parameter free
  • Numerous analytic properties
  • Slow varying limit should give LDA response. This
    requires Fx ?ms2 , m0.21951
  • Density scaling, n(r)?l3n(lr), Ex?l Ex

15
Correlation Functionals
  • Perdew - Zunger 1986
  • Perdew Wang (1991)
  • Part of parameter free PW91
  • Perdew, Burke, Ernzerhof (1996)
  • GGA made simple!
  • Parameter free
  • Simplified construction
  • Smoother, better behaved.

16
Lee Yang Parr
  • Different approach based on accurate wave
    functions for the Helium atom.
  • No relation to the homogeneous electron gas at
    all.
  • One empirical parameter
  • Often combined with Becke exchange to give BLYP.

17
Atomisation energies (kcal/mol)
  • HF LSD PBE EX
  • H2 84 113 105 109
  • CH4 328 462 420 419
  • C2H2 294 460 415 405
  • C2H4 428 633 571 563
  • N2 115 267 243 229
  • O2 33 175 144 121
  • F2 -37 78 53 39

18
Hybrid Functionals
  • Why not just add correlation to HF calculations?
    We could write EXCEXexactECLSD
  • Try it error for G2 set is 32 kcal/mol, similar
    to LDA HF gives 78 best 5.
  • Why is this?

19
Hybrid functionals 2
  • Correct XC hole is localised.
  • Exchange and correlation separately are
    delocalised.
  • DFT in LDA and GGA give localised expressions for
    both parts.
  • Sometimes simpler is better!

20
Hybrid functionals 3
  • Chemists approach take empirical admixtures.
    e.g. Becke 1993
  • Today, most common is B3LYP
  • Gives mean unsigned error of 5 kcal/mol

21
Hybrid functionals 4
  • Admixture can be justified theoretically, the
    work of PEB (96), BEP (97)
  • Using PBE96 as the GGA gives the PBE1PBE (or
    PBE0) functional.
  • Nearly as good as B3LYP

22
Meta GGAs
  • Perdew 1999
  • Better total energies.
  • Ingredients , KE density
  • Very hard to find potential, so cannot do SCF
    with this.
  • Therefore structural optimisation not possible.

23
HSE03
  • Recent development. Several motivations
  • B3LYP more accurate than BLYP. Some admixture of
    exchange needed.
  • Exact exchange is slow to calculate.
  • Linear scaling K-builds dont scale linearly in
    general.
  • Plane wave based (physics) codes cant easily
    find exact exchange.

24
Screened Exchange
  • Key idea (Heyd, Scuseria 2003)
  • First term is short-ranged second long ranged.
  • w0 gives full 1/r potential.
  • How to incorporate into a functional?

25
HSE03
26
Where does this leave us?
  • Need to find short-ranged HF contribution.
  • Linear scaling
  • Parallelism is perfect
  • Will not be time consuming for large systems.
  • Can also do with different splittings with only
    minor modification

27
Where does this leave us?
  • Need short ranged part of PBE exchange energy.
    Approach this from the standard expression
  • Modify the interaction to short ranged term
  • Need explicit expression for the hole.
  • Provided by work of EP (1998).

28
The modified hole
Essentially, fits into code as at present, but e
needs to be evaluated via an integral.
29
How about the accuracy?
  • Enthalpies of formation (kcal/mol)
  • MAE(G2) MAE(G3)
  • B3LYP 3.04 4.31
  • PBE 17.19 22.88
  • PBE0 5.15 7.29
  • HSE03 4.64 6.57
  • Conclusion competitive with hybrids.

30
How about the accuracy?
  • Vibrational freqs (cm-1) 82 diatomics
  • MAE(G2)
  • B3LYP 33.5
  • PBE 42.0
  • PBE0 43.6
  • HSE03 43.9
  • Conclusion competitive with hybrids.

31
How about the accuracy?
  • Band Gaps (eV)
  • LDA PBE HSE EXP
  • C 4.23 4.17 5.49 5.48
  • Si 0.59 0.75 1.28 1.17
  • Ge 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.74
  • GaAs 0.43 0.19 1.21 1.52
  • GaN 2.09 1.70 3.21 3.50
  • MgO 4.92 4.34 6.50 7.22

32
Has HSE got legs?
  • Different separations?
  • Improved formalism for GGA then possible.
  • Standard applications ZnO, Ge etc.
  • Effect on spectral calculations EELS
  • Possibility of multiplet calculations for defect
    centres.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com