Stefaan Cottenier

Reproducibility in density functional theory calculations of solids

A comparison of DFT methods Density functional theory (DFT) is now routinely used for simulating material properties. Many software packages are available, which makes it challenging to know which are the best to use for a specific calculation. Lejaeghere et al. compared the calculated values for the equation of states for 71 elemental crystals from 15 different widely used DFT codes employing 40 different potentials (see the Perspective by Skylaris). Although there were variations in the calculated values, most recent codes and methods converged toward a single value, with errors comparable to those of experiment. Science, this issue p. 10.1126/science.aad3000; see also p. 1394 A survey of recent density functional theory methods shows a convergence to more accurate property calculations. [Also see Perspective by Skylaris] INTRODUCTION The reproducibility of results is one of the underlying principles of science. An observation can only be accepted by the scientific community when it can be confirmed by independent studies. However, reproducibility does not come easily. Recent works have painfully exposed cases where previous conclusions were not upheld. The scrutiny of the scientific community has also turned to research involving computer programs, finding that reproducibility depends more strongly on implementation than commonly thought. These problems are especially relevant for property predictions of crystals and molecules, which hinge on precise computer implementations of the governing equation of quantum physics. RATIONALE This work focuses on density functional theory (DFT), a particularly popular quantum method for both academic and industrial applications. More than 15,000 DFT papers are published each year, and DFT is now increasingly used in an automated fashion to build large databases or apply multiscale techniques with limited human supervision. Therefore, the reproducibility of DFT results underlies the scientific credibility of a substantial fraction of current work in the natural and engineering sciences. A plethora of DFT computer codes are available, many of them differing considerably in their details of implementation, and each yielding a certain “precision” relative to other codes. How is one to decide for more than a few simple cases which code predicts the correct result, and which does not? We devised a procedure to assess the precision of DFT methods and used this to demonstrate reproducibility among many of the most widely used DFT codes. The essential part of this assessment is a pairwise comparison of a wide range of methods with respect to their predictions of the equations of state of the elemental crystals. This effort required the combined expertise of a large group of code developers and expert users. RESULTS We calculated equation-of-state data for four classes of DFT implementations, totaling 40 methods. Most codes agree very well, with pairwise differences that are comparable to those between different high-precision experiments. Even in the case of pseudization approaches, which largely depend on the atomic potentials used, a similar precision can be obtained as when using the full potential. The remaining deviations are due to subtle effects, such as specific numerical implementations or the treatment of relativistic terms. CONCLUSION Our work demonstrates that the precision of DFT implementations can be determined, even in the absence of one absolute reference code. Although this was not the case 5 to 10 years ago, most of the commonly used codes and methods are now found to predict essentially identical results. The established precision of DFT codes not only ensures the reproducibility of DFT predictions but also puts several past and future developments on a firmer footing. Any newly developed methodology can now be tested against the benchmark to verify whether it reaches the same level of precision. New DFT applications can be shown to have used a sufficiently precise method. Moreover, high-precision DFT calculations are essential for developing improvements to DFT methodology, such as new density functionals, which may further increase the predictive power of the simulations. Recent DFT methods yield reproducible results. Whereas older DFT implementations predict different values (red darts), codes have now evolved to mutual agreement (green darts). The scoreboard illustrates the good pairwise agreement of four classes of DFT implementations (horizontal direction) with all-electron results (vertical direction). Each number reflects the average difference between the equations of state for a given pair of methods, with the green-to-red color scheme showing the range from the best to the poorest agreement. The widespread popularity of density functional theory has given rise to an extensive range of dedicated codes for predicting molecular and crystalline properties. However, each code implements the formalism in a different way, raising questions about the reproducibility of such predictions. We report the results of a community-wide effort that compared 15 solid-state codes, using 40 different potentials or basis set types, to assess the quality of the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof equations of state for 71 elemental crystals. We conclude that predictions from recent codes and pseudopotentials agree very well, with pairwise differences that are comparable to those between different high-precision experiments. Older methods, however, have less precise agreement. Our benchmark provides a framework for users and developers to document the precision of new applications and methodological improvements.

Error Estimates for Solid-State Density-Functional Theory Predictions: An Overview by Means of the Ground-State Elemental Crystals

Predictions of observable properties by density-functional theory calculations (DFT) are used increasingly often by experimental condensed-matter physicists and materials engineers as data. These predictions are used to analyze recent measurements, or to plan future experiments in a rational way. Increasingly more experimental scientists in these fields therefore face the natural question: what is the expected error for such a first-principles prediction? Information and experience about this question is implicitly available in the computational community, scattered over two decades of literature. The present review aims to summarize and quantify this implicit knowledge. This eventually leads to a practical protocol that allows any scientist—experimental or theoretical—to determine justifiable error estimates for many basic property predictions, without having to perform additional DFT calculations. A central role is played by a large and diverse test set of crystalline solids, containing all ground-state elemental crystals (except most lanthanides). For several properties of each crystal, the difference between DFT results and experimental values is assessed. We discuss trends in these deviations and review explanations suggested in the literature. A prerequisite for such an error analysis is that different implementations of the same first-principles formalism provide the same predictions. Therefore, the reproducibility of predictions across several mainstream methods and codes is discussed too. A quality factor Δ expresses the spread in predictions from two distinct DFT implementations by a single number. To compare the PAW method to the highly accurate APW+lo approach, a code assessment of VASP and GPAW (PAW) with respect to WIEN2k (APW+lo) yields Δ-values of 1.9 and 3.3 meV/atom, respectively. In both cases the PAW potentials recommended by the respective codes have been used. These differences are an order of magnitude smaller than the typical difference with experiment, and therefore predictions by APW+lo and PAW are for practical purposes identical.

Electronic structure of transparent oxides with the Tran–Blaha modified Becke–Johnson potential

We present electronic band structures of transparent oxides calculated using the Tran-Blaha modified Becke-Johnson (TB-mBJ) potential. We studied the basic n-type conducting binary oxides In(2)O(3), ZnO, CdO and SnO(2) along with the p-type conducting ternary oxides delafossite CuXO(2) (X=Al, Ga, In) and spinel ZnX(2)O(4) (X=Co, Rh, Ir). The results are presented for calculated band gaps and effective electron masses. We discuss the improvements in the band gap determination using TB-mBJ compared to the standard generalized gradient approximation (GGA) in density functional theory (DFT) and also compare the electronic band structure with available results from the quasiparticle GW method. It is shown that the calculated band gaps compare well with the experimental and GW results, although the electron effective mass is generally overestimated.

Electronic structure and band gap of zinc spinel oxides beyond LDA: ZnAl2O4, ZnGa2O4 and ZnIn2O4

We examine the electronic structure of the family of ternary zinc spinel oxides ZnX2O4 (X=Al, Ga and In). The band gap of ZnAl2O4 calculated using density functional theory (DFT) is 4.25?eV and is overestimated compared with the experimental value of 3.8?3.9?eV. The DFT band gap of ZnGa2O4 is 2.82?eV and is underestimated compared with the experimental value of 4.4?5.0?eV. Since DFT typically underestimates the band gap in the oxide system, the experimental measurements for ZnAl2O4 probably require a correction. We use two first-principles techniques capable of describing accurately the excited states of semiconductors, namely the GW approximation and the modified Becke?Johnson (MBJ) potential approximation, to calculate the band gap of ZnX2O4. The GW and MBJ band gaps are in good agreement with each other. In the case of ZnAl2O4, the predicted band gap values are >6?eV, i.e. ~2?eV larger than the only reported experimental value. We expect future experimental work to confirm our results. Our calculations of the electron effective masses and the second band gap indicate that these compounds are very good candidates to act as transparent conducting host materials.

Valency of rare earths in R In-3 and R Sn-3: ab initio analysis of electric-field gradients

In

Aliovalent doping of CeO2: DFT study of oxidation state and vacancy effects

R{\mathrm{In}}_{3}

What density-functional theory can tell us about the spin-density wave in Cr

and

Tuning of CeO2 buffer layers for coated superconductors through doping

R{\mathrm{Sn}}_{3}

Density functional theory study of La2Ce2O7: Disordered fluorite versus pyrochlore structure

the rare earth (R) is trivalent, except for Eu and Yb, which are divalent. This was experimentally determined in 1977 by perturbed angular correlation measurements of the electric-field gradient on a

Diluted manganese on the bond-centered site in germanium

{}^{111}\mathrm{Cd}