QuantumWise Forum
May 23, 2013, 22:51 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Different smearing methods  (Read 1299 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ziand
Heavy ATK user
***

Reputation: 4
Offline Offline

Germany Germany

Posts: 69


View Profile
« on: January 10, 2012, 12:25 »

Hello,

I know that when dealing with metallic systems, so called smearing is very importend.
ATK uses Fermi-Dirac smearing. Thus an electron temperature is introduced, which softenes the step in the occupation of states at the Fermi level.
The advantage of this method (as I understand) is the fact, that the electron temperature in Fermi-Dirac smearing can be interpreted as the real physical temperature of the system.

However, by looking on other codes and some publications I noticed that there exist other smearing methods. The most prominent are:
- (No smearing (not recommended for metals!))
- Fermi-Dirac
- Gaussian
- Methfessel-Paxton
- Marzari-Vanderbilt
- Tetrahedron method (with Blügel correction)

Different codes (I looked at siesta, quantum espresso and castep) use different smearing methods as their default. A new siesta-manual praises the Methfessel-Paxton method (can use high electron temp. and low numer of k-points).
Anyway, if you have the time ;-) or don't know what to put in a future release you could consider implementing one or the other of the above methods.
Logged
Anders Blom
QuantumWise Staff
Supreme ATK Wizard
*****

Reputation: 36
Offline Offline

Denmark Denmark

Posts: 2816



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2012, 14:23 »

It's always interesting to hear ideas for features, and we very much appreciate this kind of feedback. We will make a note of your suggestions.

In general, we have more ideas than we have time to implement them, so it's always critical to get an idea for why a particular feature is important, in order to be able to prioritize it properly. Otherwise it becomes a feature just for the sake of the feature, without providing real value.

You have provided a good argument for the Methfessel-Paxton smearing; however, I also note that it can produce negative occupation values (unphysical!) which cause problems e.g. for visualizing the density of states. So, as always, one must tread lightly in these territories Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!