Search found 101 matches

by Vahid
Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:52 pm
Forum: Electron-phonon
Topic: Transition probability clarification
Replies: 1
Views: 30830

Transition probability clarification

Dear EPW Community, In transport.f90, the transition probability is defined as ! transition probability ! (2 pi/hbar) * (k+q-point weight) * g2 * ! { [f(E_k+q) + n(w_q)] * delta[E_k - E_k+q + w_q] + ! [1 - f(E_k+q) + n(w_q)] * delta[E_k - E_k+q - w_q] } The first term is absorption (+w_q) and the se...
by Vahid
Sat Mar 18, 2023 7:27 pm
Forum: General discussion
Topic: Emission vs. absorption coupling constant mismatch in Si
Replies: 3
Views: 15742

Re: Emission vs. absorption coupling constant mismatch in Si

Dear H. Lee, I changed the q-grid to 12x12x12, matching the k-grid. The electron and phonon dispersions from EPW match those of QE. The PSP is norm-conserving. After some digging into the code, I believe the mismatch between emission and absorption coupling constant comes from the phase factor exp(i...
by Vahid
Sat Mar 04, 2023 11:57 am
Forum: General discussion
Topic: Emission vs. absorption coupling constant mismatch in Si
Replies: 3
Views: 15742

Re: Emission vs. absorption coupling constant mismatch in Si

Dear H. Lee, I am using a norm-conserving PSP. The coarse k-grid is 12x12x12 and q-grid is 6x6x6. These give converged EPW band structure and phonon dispersion relative to QE counterparts. I was expecting some differences in g2 but not a factor of 100. I will dig further into the code. There might b...
by Vahid
Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:22 pm
Forum: General discussion
Topic: Emission vs. absorption coupling constant mismatch in Si
Replies: 3
Views: 15742

Emission vs. absorption coupling constant mismatch in Si

Dear EPW community, I am studying the following emission/absorption pair in silicon: I start with a single k-point (0.0 0.3 0.3) and a single q-point (0.0 0.1 0.1). My kq-point is (0.0 0.4 0.4). I print g2 from transport.f90. For mode #6, g2=9.51E-9. Then I use k-point (0.0 0.4 0.4) and q-point (0.0...
by Vahid
Mon Nov 07, 2022 7:07 pm
Forum: Theory
Topic: EPW velocity Definition between QE-6.0 and QE-7.0
Replies: 3
Views: 22273

Re: EPW velocity Definition between QE-6.0 and QE-7.0

Dear H. Lee,

Thank you for your response. Upto qe-6.7MAX, the factor 2 is included in the velocity expression. Only 6.8 and 7.0 have removed the 2.

Thanks,
Vahid
by Vahid
Mon Nov 07, 2022 2:58 pm
Forum: Theory
Topic: EPW velocity Definition between QE-6.0 and QE-7.0
Replies: 3
Views: 22273

Re: EPW velocity Definition between QE-6.0 and QE-7.0

Since there has been no response, is it safe to assume that one of those versions is incorrect?

Thanks,
Vahid
by Vahid
Fri Nov 04, 2022 4:01 pm
Forum: Theory
Topic: EPW velocity Definition between QE-6.0 and QE-7.0
Replies: 3
Views: 22273

EPW velocity Definition between QE-6.0 and QE-7.0

Dear EPW Community,

In the QE-6.0 version of EPW, dipole velocity was defined as

Code: Select all

vkk(:,ibnd) = 2.0 * REAL (dmef (:, ibndmin-1+ibnd,ibndmin-1+ibnd, ikk))
In the latest version, the factor 2 is missing. Are both correct?

Thank you,
Vahid

Vahid Askarpour
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Canada
by Vahid
Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:40 pm
Forum: General discussion
Topic: Negative scattering rates
Replies: 0
Views: 5044

Negative scattering rates

Dear EPW users, When calculating the momentum relaxation time using the following line in the transport.f90 of QE-6.8 vel_factor(ibnd, jbnd) = DDOT(3, vkk(:, ibnd), 1, vkq(:, jbnd), 1) / & DDOT(3, vkk(:, ibnd), 1, vkk(:, ibnd), 1) (Eq. 1) and later vel_factor(:, :) = one - vel_factor(:, :) (Eq. 2) I...
by Vahid
Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:07 pm
Forum: Running the code
Topic: Version of EPW used in Nano Letters, 20, 8861 (2020)
Replies: 2
Views: 3875

Re: Version of EPW used in Nano Letters, 20, 8861 (2020)

Dear Samuel,

Thank you for this clarification.

Best wishes,
Vahid
by Vahid
Thu Sep 09, 2021 5:22 pm
Forum: Running the code
Topic: Broken SOC in electron-phonon calculation in QE-6.8
Replies: 2
Views: 3379

Re: Broken SOC in electron-phonon calculation in QE-6.8

Hi hlee,

Thank you for this clarification.

Best,
Vahid