Arxiv:1907.06021V2 [Cond-Mat.Mtrl-Sci] 18 Nov 2019 Self Consistency (Notably Quasiparticle Self-Consistent They Orthogonalise Themselves to the Core Levels

Questaal: a package of electronic structure methods based on the linear muffin-tin orbital technique Dimitar Pashova, Swagata Acharyaa, Walter R. L. Lambrechtb, Jerome Jacksonc,∗, Kirill D. Belashchenkod, Athanasios Chantise, Francois Jameta, Mark van Schilfgaardea aDepartment of Physics, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom bDepartment of Physics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA cScientific Computing Department, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington WA4 4AD, United Kingdom dDepartment of Physics and Astronomy and Nebraska Center for Materials and Nanoscience, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA eAmerican Physical Society, 1 Research Road, Ridge, New York 11961, USA Abstract This paper summarises the theory and functionality behind Questaal, an open-source suite of codes for calculating the electronic structure and related properties of materials from first principles. The formalism of the linearised muffin-tin orbital (LMTO) method is revisited in detail and developed further by the introduction of short-ranged tight-binding basis functions for full-potential calculations. The LMTO method is presented in both Green's function and wave function formulations for bulk and layered systems. The suite's full-potential LMTO code uses a sophisticated basis and augmentation method that allows an efficient and precise solution to the band problem at different levels of theory, most importantly density functional theory, LDA+U, quasi-particle self-consistent GW and combinations of these with dynamical mean field theory. This paper details the technical and theoretical bases of these methods, their implementation in Questaal, and provides an overview of the code's design and capabilities. Keywords: Questaal, Linear Muffin Tin Orbital, Screening Transformation, Density Functional Theory, Many-Body Perturbation Theory PROGRAM SUMMARY framework of an extension to the linear muffin-tin Program Title: Questaal orbital (LMTO) technique including a highly precise and Licensing provisions: GNU General Public License, efficient full-potential implementation. An advanced version 3 fully-relativistic, non-collinear implementation based on Programming language: Fortran, C, Python, Shell the atomic sphere approximation is used for calculating Nature of problem: Highly accurate ab initio calculation transport and magnetic properties. of the electronic structure of periodic solids and of the resulting physical, spectroscopic and magnetic properties for diverse material classes with different strengths and kinds of electronic correlation. 1. Introduction Solution method: The many electron problem is considered at different levels of theory: density Different implementations of DFT are distin- functional theory, many body perturbation theory guished mainly by their basis set, which forms the in the GW approximation with different degrees of core of any electronic structure method, and how arXiv:1907.06021v2 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 18 Nov 2019 self consistency (notably quasiparticle self-consistent they orthogonalise themselves to the core levels. Us- GW ) and dynamical mean field theory. The solution ing these classifications most methods adopt one of to the single-particle band problem is achieved in the four possible combinations shown in Fig. 1. In the vast majority of cases, basis sets consist of either ∗Corresponding author. E-mail address: atom-centred spatially localised functions (lower [email protected] panel of Fig. 1), or plane waves (PW) (upper). As Preprint submitted to Computer Physics Communications November 19, 2019 Figure 1: 2×2 rubric for main classifications of basis set. Nuclei are shown as dots. The all-electron methods APW and KKR on the right substitute (augment) the envelope function (green) with numerical solutions of partial waves Figure 2: Left: basis function in the vicinity of a nucleus, inside augmentation spheres (blue and red). Parts inside showing orthogonalisation to core states (solid line), and augmentation spheres are called \partial waves." The two corresponding basis function in a pseudopotential (dashed figures on the left use a pseudopotential allowing their enve- line). Right: a muffin-tin potential: the potential is flat in the lope functions to be smooth, with no augmentation needed. interstitial region between sites, and spherically symmetric A pseudopotential's radius corresponds to a characteristic in a volume around each site. Blue depicts an augmentation augmentation radius. The top two figures use plane waves for radius sR around a sphere centred at some nuclear position envelope functions; the bottom two use atom-centred local R where the interstitial and augmented regions join. basis sets. We denote localised basis sets as \KKR", for the Korringa-Kohn-Rostocker method [1] as it plays a central role in this work; but there are other kinds, for example the Gaussian orbitals widely favoured among quantum chemists. of a one-dimensional wave equation (Sec. 2), which can be efficiently accomplished. An immense amount of work has followed the orig- for treatment of the core, it is very common to sub- inal ideas of Herring and Slater. The Questaal pack- stitute an effective repulsive (pseudo)potential to age is an all-electron implementation in the Slater simulate its effect, an idea initially formulated by tradition, so we will not further discuss the vast liter- Conyers Herring [2]. Pseudopotentials make it pos- ature behind the construction of a pseudopotential, sible to avoid orthogonalisation to the core, which except to note there is a close connection between allows the (pseudo)wave functions to be nodeless pseudopotentials and the energy linearisation proce- and smooth. For methods applied to condensed dure to be described below. Blöchl's immensely pop- matter, the primary alternative method, formulated ular Projector Augmented-Wave method [4] makes a by Slater in 1937 [3], keeps all the electrons. Space construction intermediate between pseudopotentials is partitioned into non-overlapping spheres centred and APWs. Questaal uses atom-centred envelope at each nucleus, with the interstitial region mak- functions instead of plane waves (Sec. 3), and an aug- ing up the rest. The basis functions are defined mentation scheme that resembles the PAW method by plane waves in the interstitial, which are re- but can be converged to an exact solution for the placed (\augmented") by numerical solutions of the reference potential, as Slater's original method did. Schrödingerequations (partial waves) inside the aug- The spherical approximation is still almost univer- mentation spheres. The two solutions must be joined sally used to construct the basis set, and thanks smoothly and differentiably on the augmentation to the variational principle, errors are second order sphere boundary (minimum conditions for a non- in the nonspherical part of the potential. The non- singular potential). Slater made a simplification: he spherical part is generally quite small, and this is approximated the potential inside the augmentation widely thought to be a very good approximation, spheres with its spherical average, and also the in- and the Questaal codes adopt it. terstitial potential with a constant. This is called For a MT potential (VMT taken to be 0 for the Muffin Tin (MT) approximation; see Fig. 2. simplicity), the Schrödingerequation for energy Solutions to spherical potentials are separable " has locally analytical solutions: in the intersti- into radial and angular parts, φ`("; r)YL(^r). The φ` tial the solution can expressed as a plane wave i k·r 2 2 are called partial waves and YL are the spherical e , with "=~ k =2m. (We will use atomic Ryd- harmonics. Here and elsewhere, angular momentum berg units throughout, ~=2m=e2=2=1). In spher- labelled by an upper case letter refers to both the ical coordinates envelope functions can be Hankel ` and m parts. A lower case symbol refers to the functions HL(E; r)=h`(kr)YL(^r) or Bessel functions orbital index only (` is the orbital part of L=(`; m)). j`(kr)YL(^r), except that Bessel functions are ex- The φ` are readily found by numerical integration cluded as envelope functions because they are not 2 bounded in space. Inside the augmentation spheres, employed in the first ab initio description of in- solutions consist of some linear combination of the stanton dynamics [10], one of the first noncollinear φ`. magnetic codes and the first ab initio description The all-electron basis sets \APW" (augmented of spin dynamics [11], first implementation of exact plane wave) and \KKR" [1] are both instances of exchange and exact exchange+correlation [12], one augmented-wave methods: both generate arbitrar- of the first all-electron GW implementations [13], ily accurate solutions for a muffin-tin potential. and early density-functional implementations of non- They differ in their choice of envelope functions equilibrium Green's functions for Landauer-Buttiker (plane waves or Hankel functions), but they are transport [14]. In 2001 Aryasetiawan's GW was similar in that they join onto solutions of partial extended to a full-potential framework to become waves in augmentation spheres. Both basis sets the first all-electron GW code [15]. Soon after are energy-dependent, which makes them very com- the concept of quasiparticle self-consistency was plicated and their solution messy and slow. This developed [16], which has dramatically improved difficulty was solved by O.K. Andersen in 1975 [5]. the quality of GW. Its most recent extension is to His seminal

Load more