Source author record

Jan Doumont

Jan Doumont appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other physics.comp-ph

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Bandgap of two-dimensional materials: Thorough assessment of modern exchange-correlation functionals

The density functional theory (DFT) approximations that are the most accurate for the calculation of band gap of bulk materials are hybrid functionals like HSE06, the MBJ potential, and the GLLB-SC potential. More recently, generalized gradient approximations (GGA), like HLE16, or meta-GGAs, like (m)TASK, have proven to be also quite accurate for the band gap. Here, the focus is on 2D materials and the goal is to provide a broad overview of the performance of DFT functionals by considering a large test set of 298 2D systems. The present work is an extension of our recent studies [Rauch et al., Phys. Rev. B 101, 245163 (2020) and Patra et al., J. Phys. Chem. C 125, 11206 (2021)]. Due to the lack of experimental results for the band gap of 2D systems, $G_{0}W_{0}$ results were taken as reference. It is shown that the GLLB-SC potential and mTASK functional provide the band gaps that are the closest to $G_{0}W_{0}$. Following closely, the local MBJ potential has a pretty good accuracy that is similar to the accuracy of the more expensive hybrid functional HSE06.

preprint2022arXiv

Implementation of self-consistent MGGA functionals in augmented plane wave based methods

Functionals of the meta-generalized gradient approximation (MGGA) are nowadays widely used in chemistry and solid-state physics for the simulation of electronic systems like molecules, solids, or surfaces. Due to their dependency on the kinetic energy density, they are in principle more accurate than GGA functionals for various properties (geometry, binding energy, electronic structure, etc.), while being nearly as fast since they are still of the semilocal form. Thus, when an accuracy better than GGA is required, one may consider using a MGGA instead of the much more costly hybrid functionals or methods like the random-phase approximation or $GW$. In this work, the self-consistent implementation of MGGA functionals in APW based methods is presented. Technical aspects of the implementation are discussed, and calculations of band gaps, lattice constants, and magnetic moments are presented in order to validate our implementation. To test the changes of the electron density due to a MGGA, the electric field gradient on transition-metal atoms is calculated.

preprint2020arXiv

Validation of pseudopotential calculations for the electronic band gap of solids

Nowadays pseudopotential density-functional theory calculations constitute the standard approach to tackle solid-state electronic problems. These rely on distributed pseudopotential tables that were built from all-electron atomic calculations using few popular semi-local exchange-correlation functionals, while pseudopotentials based on more modern functionals, like meta-GGA and hybrid functionals, or for many-body methods, such as $GW$, are often not available. Because of this, employing pseudopotentials created with inconsistent exchange-correlation functionals has become a common practice. Our aim is to quantify systematically the error in the determination of the electronic band gap when cross-functional pseudopotential calculations are performed. To this end we compare band gaps obtained with norm-conserving pseudopotentials or the projector-augmented wave method with all-electron calculations for a large dataset of 473 solids. We focus in particular on density functionals that were designed specifically for band-gap calculations. On average, the absolute error is about 0.1 eV, yielding absolute relative errors in the 5-10\% range. Considering that typical errors stemming from the choice of the functional are usually larger, we conclude that the effect of choosing an inconsistent pseudopotential is rather harmless for most applications. However, we find specific cases where absolute errors can be larger than 1 eV, or others where relative errors can amount to a large fraction of the band gap.