Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How to shift density of states #190

Open
kcbhamu opened this issue Nov 29, 2022 · 9 comments
Open

How to shift density of states #190

kcbhamu opened this issue Nov 29, 2022 · 9 comments

Comments

@kcbhamu
Copy link

kcbhamu commented Nov 29, 2022

Dear Alex,
I am plotting bands and dos in one plot. I see, my DOS is slightly shifted towards the +ve y-axis. I mean, VBM and VBM for bands and DOSs are not falling on the same point. I want to shift the default DOSs with the difference in Fermi_energy of band and doss. How can I do it?

@ajjackson
Copy link
Member

This is the correct behaviour if the DOS includes broadening. Do you see it with a tetrahedron-method DOS?

@kcbhamu
Copy link
Author

kcbhamu commented Nov 29, 2022

I used the below INCARs

  1. INCAR.scf
    ISMEAR = 0
    SIGMA = .05
    IBRION = -1

  2. INCAR.HSE (used WAVECAR from step 1)
    IBRION = -1
    ISMEAR=-5
    SIGMA=0.01

@ajjackson
Copy link
Member

ajjackson commented Nov 29, 2022

That does look like a tetrahedron-method DOS, so this isn't due to smearing.

The Fermi energy of a non-self-consistent band structure calculation isn't really meaningful, but the energy levels should be consistent with a DOS calculated on the same density.

I wonder if it was shifted by self-consistency with more k-points. I see HSE mentioned so presumably these are self-consistent hybrid-DFT calculations with zero-weighted k-points for the band structure. Did you also zero-weight the DOS k-points? (Actually I'm not sure if Sumo really supports that, any idea @utf?) How well-converged is the self-consistent k-point mesh?

Another thing to check: which k-point has the VBM in the DOS? (You should be able to check with sumo-bandstats.) Is it definitely a point that appears in the band structure? (Usually it is Gamma and the answer is "yes" but there are exceptions...)

@kcbhamu
Copy link
Author

kcbhamu commented Dec 1, 2022

I used SCF k-mesh with 0.022piAng^(-1) for SCF in both cases. Although, "zero-weighted k-points" were used for SCF and NSCF for band structure calculations while for DOS, a regular k-mesh was used.

Hole effective masses:
m_h: -4.394 | band 100 | [0.50, 0.00, 0.00] (M) -> [0.00, 0.00, 0.00] (\Gamma)
m_h: -6.520 | band 100 | [0.50, 0.00, 0.00] (M) -> [0.00, 0.00, 0.00] (\Gamma)

Electron effective masses:
m_e: 30.467 | band 101 | [0.00, 0.00, 0.00] (\Gamma) -> [0.50, 0.00, 0.00] (M)
m_e: 2.760 | band 101 | [0.00, 0.00, 0.00] (\Gamma) -> [0.50, 0.00, 0.00] (M)

For DOS, I used gamma-centered k-mesh
K-Spacing Value to Generate K-Mesh: 0.020
0
Gamma
4 4 1
0.0 0.0 0.0

for band structure, I used additional zero-weighted k-points.

I am attaching the plot.
band.pdf

@ajjackson
Copy link
Member

Hmm, that certainly does look like a shift in the energy reference. Can you have a look at the reported Fermi energy of your band structure and DOS calculations and see if they differ by a similar amount?

I think bandplot relies on the energy levels being consistent between calculations. It's strange that they would be so different for such a flat band structure.

@kcbhamu
Copy link
Author

kcbhamu commented Dec 5, 2022 via email

@ajjackson
Copy link
Member

We do not currently provide a command-line argument to apply this shift, it is expected that the DOS and band-structure calculations will be consistent.

It is quite strange that the Fermi energies would be different from calculations with the same "active" k-points, are you sure they are both using the same Gamma-centered 4x4x1 mesh and the SCF is converged?

@mersadkhan
Copy link

This seems to be a bug that the command sumo-bandplot can not set the fermi energy to the same point that the band is set.

@ajjackson
Copy link
Member

No, it is a feature request

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants