计算化学公社

 找回密码 Forget password
 注册 Register
Views: 10583|回复 Reply: 0
打印 Print 上一主题 Last thread 下一主题 Next thread

[量化理论] Different approaches to creating (meta-GGA) DFT functionals

[复制链接 Copy URL]

6万

帖子

99

威望

5万

eV
积分
120137

管理员

公社社长

转载自http://www.compchemhighlights.org/2016/06/different-approaches-to-creating-meta.html

Different approaches to creating (meta-GGA) DFT functionals

Contributed by David Bowler
Reposted from Atomistic Computer Simulations with permission


Within the DFT community, John Perdew’s idea of the Jacob’s ladder of accuracy[1] starts with LDA, moves to GGAs with the inclusion of the gradient of the electron density, and is further extended (to rungs three and four in the ladder analogy) with meta-GGA, where kinetic energy density is added, and hybrids, where exact exchange plays a role. Although meta-GGAs have been around for ten to fifteen years, they are only starting to become widely used. I will compare two examples which both seem promising, but also encapsulate the two most common approaches to functional creation.

Meta-GGAs are promising because the kinetic energy density allows some discrimination between areas with one or two electrons (in this way, they are similar in some ways to the electron localisation function, or ELF, which can be used to analyse bonding[2]). This gives some hope that they may be able to fit both strong and weak bonding as well as possibly mitigating the self-interaction error that plagues DFT.

The Minnesota meta-GGA MN15-L[3] takes a very complex functional form with 58 parameters and a non-separable form for the exchange-correlation (adding an extra correlation functional to this) and fits it to a portion of a very large database (I estimate that there are at least 900 entries in the database, covering many different chemical properties, specifically including solid state properties, transition barriers and weak interactions). The resulting functional is local (no hybrid or non-local van der Waals terms were included) and produces extremely small errors when compared to those parts of the database which were not used in fitting. Notably, it out-performs functionals with exchange and van der Waals included.

By contrast, the SCAN functional[4] uses only seven parameters (close to, if not at, the minimal number for a meta-GGA) and includes various physically motivated norms and constraints for the electron gas. The early progress in GGAs was made by satisfying important constraints, so this is seen as a good route to reliability. This functional was also tested on various databases, particularly focussing on solid-state and weak interactions. It has excellent agreement with these, though was published before the MN15-L functional so is not compared directly. In a follow-up paper[5] the performance of the SCAN functional for band gaps is found to be good, though it does not calculate Kohn-Sham gaps, but gaps within a generalized Kohn-Sham theory (a distinction which I don’t have time to discuss here; I may write another blog on this, as it is relevant to hybrid functionals among other things.)

What can we learn from this ? Both functionals perform well in the tests which are published. The functional that you choose will depend in part, as always, on which system you wish to study; however, both of these functionals show some promise in being widely applicable. Your choice will also depend on your attitude to fitting[6]: is a reasonable functional form with many parameters something that you trust, or do you prefer to be more prescriptive, and deal with fewer parameters ? Fifty years since its inception, DFT is still developing, communities are still somewhat divided in the approaches that they take to functional development, but there are an increasing number of ways to achieve efficiency and accuracy.

[1] My colleague, Mike Gillan, reckons that we should instead talk about wrestling Jacob when considering how to improve DFT functionals.
[2] J. Chem. Phys. 92, 5397 (1990) DOI: 10.1063/1.458517
[3] J. Chem. Theor. Comput. 12, 1280 (2016) DOI: 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b01082
[4] Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036402 (2015) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.036402
[5] Phys. Rev. B 93, 205205 (2016) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.205205
[6] The oft-quoted maxim about fitting an elephant with four parameters has been put into practice (see the original paper here and a nice write-up and a python implementation here)

评分 Rate

参与人数
Participants 2
eV +8 收起 理由
Reason
zhanfei + 5 好物!看手册firefly dalton没实现metaGGA
liyuanhe211 + 3 噫~曾思考过的问题

查看全部评分 View all ratings

北京科音自然科学研究中心http://www.keinsci.com)致力于计算化学的发展和传播,长期开办极高质量的各种计算化学类培训:初级量子化学培训班中级量子化学培训班高级量子化学培训班量子化学波函数分析与Multiwfn程序培训班分子动力学与GROMACS培训班CP2K第一性原理计算培训班,内容介绍以及往届资料购买请点击相应链接查看。这些培训是计算化学从零快速入门以及进一步全面系统性提升研究水平的高速路!培训各种常见问题见《北京科音办的培训班FAQ》
欢迎加入北京科音微信公众号获取北京科音培训的最新消息,并避免错过网上有价值的计算化学文章!
欢迎加入人气极高、专业性特别强的理论与计算化学综合交流群思想家公社QQ群(群号见此链接),合计达一万多人。北京科音培训班的学员在群中可申请VIP头衔,提问将得到群主Sobereva的最优先解答。
思想家公社的门口Blog:http://sobereva.com(发布大量原创计算化学相关博文)
Multiwfn主页:http://sobereva.com/multiwfn(十分强大、极为流行的量子化学波函数分析程序)
Google Scholar:https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=tiKE0qkAAAAJ
ResearchGate:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tian_Lu

本版积分规则 Credits rule

手机版 Mobile version|北京科音自然科学研究中心 Beijing Kein Research Center for Natural Sciences|京公网安备 11010502035419号|计算化学公社 — 北京科音旗下高水平计算化学交流论坛 ( 京ICP备14038949号-1 )|网站地图

GMT+8, 2025-8-15 20:03 , Processed in 0.165003 second(s), 21 queries , Gzip On.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表 Return to list