Dear Samuel,
I ran the phonon dispersion with qe-6.2.1 using both the matdyn.x code and EPW-4.3.0 for GaN example case. I used 6x6x6 coarse k/q grids. The PSP is given earlier on this thread. It is a fully relativistic PSP. Tags lpolar and epsil, lspinorb and noncolin are all set to true.
In the EPW input, I used lifc=.true. and asr_typ='simple'. I used 'simple' asr in matdyn.in and q2r.in as well and renamed the force constant file to ifc.q2r.xml in the save folder.
Here is a comparison of the two phonon dispersions (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t-Mnw- ... q-v04/view). The EPW bands have higher energies especially for the upper optical modes. Is this behaviour expected?
Thanks,
Vahid
SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Moderator: stiwari
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Hello,
Could you try asr_typ='crystal' ?
Also, the simple sum rule is the default one in EPW. Therefore if you do not need the crystal sum rule (usually better than simple), then you can just do
lifc=.false.
In principle lifc = false and lifc = .true. + asr_typ='simple' should get the same results.
There might be a bug if it is not the case.
Could you do those 2 additional calculations and tell us your results ?
Calculation 1: same but with asr_typ='crystal
Calculation 2: lifc = false and asr_typ does not need to be specified. You do not need ifc.q2r.xml file in this case.
Thanks,
Samuel
Could you try asr_typ='crystal' ?
Also, the simple sum rule is the default one in EPW. Therefore if you do not need the crystal sum rule (usually better than simple), then you can just do
lifc=.false.
In principle lifc = false and lifc = .true. + asr_typ='simple' should get the same results.
There might be a bug if it is not the case.
Could you do those 2 additional calculations and tell us your results ?
Calculation 1: same but with asr_typ='crystal
Calculation 2: lifc = false and asr_typ does not need to be specified. You do not need ifc.q2r.xml file in this case.
Thanks,
Samuel
Prof. Samuel Poncé
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS / Professeur UCLouvain
Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences
UCLouvain, Belgium
Web: https://www.samuelponce.com
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS / Professeur UCLouvain
Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences
UCLouvain, Belgium
Web: https://www.samuelponce.com
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Dear Samuel,
The setting asr_typ=crystal (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1F6Ell ... uFYdXAtM2A) and lifc=.false. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LzpJ0 ... XLreEdk4UZ) are consistent with the lifc=true and asr_typ=simple result reported earlier. In all three cases, EPW is consistently higher than matdyn. And in all three cases, EPW dispersion is the same.
I also tried asr=crystal in matdyn.in and q2r.in and the matdyn dispersion is the same for both asr settings.
Best,
Vahid
The setting asr_typ=crystal (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1F6Ell ... uFYdXAtM2A) and lifc=.false. (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LzpJ0 ... XLreEdk4UZ) are consistent with the lifc=true and asr_typ=simple result reported earlier. In all three cases, EPW is consistently higher than matdyn. And in all three cases, EPW dispersion is the same.
I also tried asr=crystal in matdyn.in and q2r.in and the matdyn dispersion is the same for both asr settings.
Best,
Vahid
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Hello,
Are you sure you did not do a silly mistake and that the input are consistent ?
I suspect something like a mistake in the value "amass" for example.
This would results in such a shift up.
Best,
Samuel
Are you sure you did not do a silly mistake and that the input are consistent ?
I suspect something like a mistake in the value "amass" for example.
This would results in such a shift up.
Best,
Samuel
Prof. Samuel Poncé
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS / Professeur UCLouvain
Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences
UCLouvain, Belgium
Web: https://www.samuelponce.com
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS / Professeur UCLouvain
Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences
UCLouvain, Belgium
Web: https://www.samuelponce.com
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Hello,
I will try to debug the SOC part of the code. I will keep you posted as to what I find.
Best,
Vahid
I will try to debug the SOC part of the code. I will keep you posted as to what I find.
Best,
Vahid
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 10:52 am
- Affiliation:
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Hi Vahid,
Do you mean that if you turn off SOC in your GaN calculation you get the right phonon dispersion?
Carla
Do you mean that if you turn off SOC in your GaN calculation you get the right phonon dispersion?
Carla
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Hi Carla,
I have not tried running GaN without SOC. I have run other polar materials without SOC and there were no discrepancies between matdyn and EPW phonon dispersion.
Fo this thread, I was merely trying to run on GaN with SOC. I checked to see if the phonon dispersions are consistent but they appear not to be. The masses are consistent in all the input files. So are the lattice parameters.
I will keep looking and will report back when I find something.
Best,
Vahid
I have not tried running GaN without SOC. I have run other polar materials without SOC and there were no discrepancies between matdyn and EPW phonon dispersion.
Fo this thread, I was merely trying to run on GaN with SOC. I checked to see if the phonon dispersions are consistent but they appear not to be. The masses are consistent in all the input files. So are the lattice parameters.
I will keep looking and will report back when I find something.
Best,
Vahid
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Hi Samuel and Carla,
I found out why the matdyn and EPW phonon dispersions did not match. In converting from meV to wavenumber, I used a factor of 0.12 whereas I should have used 0.12398. My bad!
Best,
Vahid
I found out why the matdyn and EPW phonon dispersions did not match. In converting from meV to wavenumber, I used a factor of 0.12 whereas I should have used 0.12398. My bad!
Best,
Vahid
Re: SOC removes LO-TO splitting in GaN
Dear Vahid,
Glad to hear that it now works for you.
Thanks for letting us know.
Best,
Samuel
Glad to hear that it now works for you.
Thanks for letting us know.
Best,
Samuel
Prof. Samuel Poncé
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS / Professeur UCLouvain
Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences
UCLouvain, Belgium
Web: https://www.samuelponce.com
Chercheur qualifié F.R.S.-FNRS / Professeur UCLouvain
Institute of Condensed Matter and Nanosciences
UCLouvain, Belgium
Web: https://www.samuelponce.com