# ABINIT, first tutorial on GW :

## The quasi-particle band structure of Silicon, in the GW approximation

This lesson aims at showing how to get self-energy corrections to the DFT Kohn-Sham eigenvalues in the GW approximation.
The GW formalism will NOT be explained in this tutorial. The reader might consult the review

- "Quasiparticle calculations in solids", by Aulbur WG, Jonsson L, Wilkins JW,
  in Solid State Physics 54, 1-218 (2000),
  also available at http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/vita/gw_review.ps (this .ps file starts from the last page and go back to the first one, which is a bit embarassing ...) or http://www.abinit.org/documentation/quasiparticle_calculations_in_solids.pdf.bz2 (this .ps file is correctly ordered)

The different formulas of the GW formalism, that have been implemented in ABINIT, have been written in a pdf document by Valerio Olevano (who also wrote the first version of this tutorial), see ~abinit/doc/theory/gwa.pdf .

It is suggested to acknowledge the efforts of developers of the GW part of ABINIT, by citing
X. Gonze, G.-M. Rignanese, M. Verstraete, J.-M. Beuken, Y. Pouillon, R. Caracas, F. Jollet, M. Torrent, G. Zerah, M. Mikami, Ph. Ghosez, M. Veithen, J.-Y. Raty, V. Olevano, F. Bruneval, L. Reining, R. Godby, G. Onida, D.R. Hamann, and D.C. Allan. Zeit. Kristallogr. 220, 558-562 (2005).

The user should be familiarized with the four basic lessons of ABINIT, see the tutorial home page.

After this first tutorial on GW, you should read the second tutorial on GW.

This lesson should take about 2 hours to be done.

##### Copyright (C) 2002-2009 ABINIT group (VOlevano,XG)
This file is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, see ~abinit/COPYING or http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.txt .
For the initials of contributors, see ~abinit/doc/developers/contributors.txt .

Goto : ABINIT home Page | Suggested acknowledgments | List of input variables | Tutorial home page | Bibliography

Help files : New user's guide | Abinis (main) | Abinis (respfn) | Mrgddb | Anaddb | AIM (Bader) | Cut3D | Optic | Mrgscr

### Content of the lesson GW

- 1. General example of well converged GW calculation.
- 2. Calculation of the Kohn-Sham structure (KSS file) and of the screening (SCR file).
- 3. Convergence on the number of planewaves in the wavefunctions to calculate the Self-Energy.
- 4. Convergence on the number of planewaves to calculate Sigma_x.
- 5. Convergence on the number of bands to calculate the Self-Energy.
- 6. Convergence on the number of planewaves in the wavefunctions to calculate the screening (epsilon^-1).
- 7. Convergence on the number of bands to calculate the screening.
- 8. Convergence on the dimension of the epsilon^-1 matrix.
- 9. Calculation of the GW corrections for the band gap in Gamma.
- 10. Advanced features : calculations without plasmon-pole models, and self-consistency.

####

### 1. Computation of the Silicon band gap at Gamma, using a GW calculation.

Before beginning, you might consider to work in a different subdirectory as for the other lessons. Why not "Work_gw1" ?

At the end of lesson 3, you computed the Kohn-Sham band structure of Silicon. In this approximation, the variation of eigenvalues inside each band is reasonable, as well as the band widths, but the band gaps are known to be qualitatively wrong. Now, we will compute the band gaps much more accurately, using the so-called GW approximation.

We start by an example, in which we show how to perform in one shot the calculation of the ground state, the Kohn Sham electronic structure, the screening, and the Self-Energy matrix elements, that is, the GW corrections, for one given k-point, for the highest occupied and the lowest empty bands. We provide some reasonable parameters without checking convergence. You will see that this procedure is MUCH MORE time-consuming than the corresponding calculation of the Kohn-Sham eigenvalues.

So, let us run immediately this calculation, and while it is running, we will explain what has been done.

In the directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the files ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/tgw1_x.files and tgw1_1.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file so that all occurences of gw1_x are replaced by gw1_1 .
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_1.log &

It is very important to run this job in background. Indeed, a PC Intel PIV/2.2 GHz will take about 6 minutes to complete it. In the meantime, you should read the following.

####

#### 1.a The three steps of a GW calculation.

In order to complete a standard GW calculation, one has to :

1. Run a converged Ground State calculation (at fixed lattice parameters and atomic positions), to get self-consistent density and potential, and Kohn-Sham eigenvalues and eigenfunctions at the relevant k-point as well as on a regular grid of k-points ;
2. On the basis of these available Kohn-Sham data, compute the independent-particle susceptibility matrix ("chi0"), on a regular grid of q-points, for at least two frequencies (usually, zero frequency and a large pure imaginary frequency - on the order of the plasmon frequency, a dozen of eV), then compute the RPA suscptibility matrix ("chi") in the same conditions, the dielectric matrix ("epsilon") and its inverse ("epsilon^-1");
3. On this basis, compute the self-energy ("sigma") matrix element at the given k-point, and derive the GW eigenvalues for the target states at this k-point.

The input file tgw1_1.in has precisely that structure: there are three datasets. The first dataset starts a rather usual SCF calculation, then will construct a specialized file, tgw1_xo_DS1_KSS (_KSS for "Kohn-Sham Structure), that contains the needed information to start step 2. The second dataset drives the computation of susceptibility and dielectric matrices, giving another specialized file, tgw1_xo_DS2_SCR (_SCR for "Screening", actually "Epsilon Minus 1" - the inverse dielectric matrix). Then, in the third dataset, one builds the eigenvalues of the 4th and 5th bands at the Gamma point.

So, you can edit this tgw1_1.in file.

In the dataset-independent part of this file (the last half of the file), there is the usual set of input variables, describing the cell, atom types, number, position, planewave cut-off energy, SCF convergence parameters, than in the t35.in file, driving the Kohn-Sham band structure calculation. Then, for the three datasets, you will find specialized additional input variables.

####

#### 1.b Generating the Kohn-Sham band structure: the KSS file.

In dataset 1, apart from the usual input variables we are acquainted to through the previous tutorials, there is a new input variable:

    nbandkss -1        # Number of bands in KSS file (-1 means the maximum possible)

This input variable tells the program to calculate the Kohn-Sham electronic structure by the (in this case) full diagonalization of the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian evaluated at the converged density and calculated in each one of the k-points of the grid. Note that this diagonalization is performed in a routine (outkss.f) separated from the usual SCF cycle, so that there is additional control of the wavefunction actually stored, if needed. In particular, the number of bands to be computed in this routine is NOT determined by the usual input variable nband.

nbandkss is the key variable to create a _KSS file. If it is zero, no _KSS file will be created. -1 lead to the generation (full diagonalization of the Kohn-Sham hamiltonian) and storage of the maximum possible number of states (or bands) common to all points. This depends on the energy cutoff ecut which also determines the dimension of the Kohn-Sham hamiltonian, and might lead to quite time-consuming calculations. One can reduce the load in the diagonalization by requiring less states by carring out partial diagonalizations of the Kohn-Sham hamiltonian.

The variable npwkss governs the size of the plane wave basis to be used to store the wavefunctions in the KSS file. The default value leaves the number of plane waves equal to the one of the SCF ground state calculation determined by the ecut variable. The variable npwkss reduces the size of the KSS file but it does NOT reduce the load of the diagonalization since the dimension of the Kohn-Sham hamiltonian is always controlled by ecut and npwkss acts only as a post-diagonalization cutoff. Please also notice that in the GW calculation the plane waves basis is always Gamma centered and it is the same for all the considered k-points, while in the Ground State calculation the plane waves basis changes for each k-point, each time being centered on the given k-point.

Another relevant input variable, related also to the specific set up of the _KSS file is kssform. In this case we are using the value 1, which corresponds to ask a KSS (Kohn-Sham electronic Structure file) through a diagonalization of the Kohn-Sham hamiltonian. The value 3 corresponds to ask a KSS through the normal Conjugate Gradient algorithm to be carried out also for all the empty states we need in the GW calculation (in much the same way of what is done when calculating a band plot, paying attention at the value used for the tolerance on the residual on the wavefunctions). This could be interesting for systems having very large Kohn-Sham hamiltonians, that is very large cutoff energies. However, if the number of states needed in the GW calculation is large, it might be more convenient to carry out the diagonalization even in this case.

In this first dataset, we asked also the self-consistent cycle to be done for nine bands.

    nband1      9         # Number of (occ and empty) bands to be computed

Only four bands would be needed for Si. The purpose of defining more bands in the ground-state determination is to verify that at least the first Kohn-Sham eigenvalues obtained through the diagonalization are sufficiently close to those determined (with a residual) in the self-consistent procedure. The comparison is done automatically, and one should check if there is something wrong when a warning message appears.

Finally, the input variable symmorphi is also used in this datafile, where it is set to 0. Please, read the corresponding section of the help file. In the future, we hope that the restriction of symmetry operations to symmorphic ones for the GW part will be waived. In the meantime, please use it (symmorphi=0) whenever you generate the KSS file, or perform the calculation of the screening or the self-energy. In some cases, you might gain some time by performing the SCF ground-state calculation in a separate dataset than the KSS file writing. In this case, use the minimal number of bands and full set of symmetry operations for the SCF ground-state calculation, and then, in the next dataset, generating KSS, impose symmorphi=0. You will also gain time if you choose as origin of the cell a point that maximizes the number of symmetry operations without a non-symmorphic vector.

####

#### 1.c Generating the screening : the SCR file.

In dataset 2 the calculation of the screening (susceptibility, dielectric matrix) is performed. We need to set optdriver=3 to do that :

    optdriver2  3        # Screening calculation

The getkss input variable is similar to other "get" input variables of ABINIT :

    getkss2     -1       # Obtain KSS file from previous dataset

In this case, it tells the code to use the KSS file calculated in the previous dataset.

Then, three input variables describe the computation :

    nband2      25       # Bands to be used in the screening calculation
    ecutwfn2    2.1      # Cut-off energy of the planewave set to represent the wavefunctions
    ecuteps2    3.6      # Cut-off energy of the planewave set to represent the dielectric matrix

In this case, we use 25 bands to calculate the Kohn-Sham response function $\chi^{(0)}_{KS}$; we use a cut-off ecutwfn=2.1 Hartree, giving 89 planewaves to represent the wavefunctions in the calculation of $\chi^{(0)}_{KS}$. The dimension of $\chi^{(0)}_{KS}$, as well as all the other matrices ($\chi$, $\espilon$) is determined by ecuteps=3.6 Hartree, giving 169 planewaves.

Finally we define the frequencies at which the screening must be evaluated : $\omega = 0.0 eV$ and the imaginary frequency $\omega = i 16.7 eV$. The latter is determined by the input variable ppmfrq

    ppmfrq2    16.7 eV  # Imaginary frequency where to calculate the screening

The two frequencies are used to calculate the plasmon-pole model parameters. For the non-zero frequency it is recommanded to use a value close to the plasmon frequency for the plasmon-pole model to work well. Plasmons frequencies are usually close to 0.5 Hartree. The parameters for the screening calculation are not far from the ones that give converged Energy Loss Function (-Im \epsilon^-1_00) spectra, So that one can start up by using indications from EELS calculations existing in literature.

####

#### 1.d Computing the GW energies.

In dataset 3 the calculation of the Self-Energy matrix elements is performed. One needs to define the driver option, as well as the _KSS and _SCR files.

    optdriver3  4        # Self-Energy calculation
    getkss3     -2       # Obtain KSS file from dataset 1
    getscr3     -1       # Obtain SCR file from previous dataset

The getscr input variable is also similar to other "get" input variables of ABINIT.

Then, comes the definition of parameters needed to compute the self-energy. As for the computation of the susceptibility and dielectric matrices, one must define the set of bands, and two sets of planewaves :

    nband3      100      # Bands to be used in the Self-Energy calculation
    ecutwfn3    5.0      # Planewaves to be used to represent the wavefunctions
    ecutsigx3    6.0      # Dimension of the G sum in Sigma_x
                         # (the dimension in Sigma_c is controlled by npweps)

In this case, nband controls the number of bands used to calculate the Self-Energy. ecutwfn defines (as for optdriver=3) the number of planewaves used to represent the wavefunctions. ecutsigx gives the dimension of the planewave sum needed to calculate Sigma_x (the exchange part of the self-energy, which is diagonal). The size of the planewave set needed to compute Sigma_c (the correlation part of the self-energy) is controlled by the dimension of the screening matrix read in the SCR file. However, it is taken equal to the number of planewave of Sigma_x if the latter is smaller than the one for Sigma_c.

Then, come the parameters defining the k-points and states for which the electronic energy must be computed :

    nkptgw3      1               # number of k-point where to calculate the GW correction
    kptgw3                       # k-points
      -0.125    0.000    0.000
    bdgw3       4  5             # calculate GW corrections for bands from 4 to 5

nkptgw tells the number of k-points for which the GW corrections must be computed. The k-points coordinates are given in kptgw. At present, they MUST belong to the k-point grid chosen to generate the KSS file. Hence if you wish the GW correction in a particular k-point, you should choose a grid containing it. Usually this is done by taking the k-point grid where the convergence is achieved and shifting it such as at least one k-point is placed on the wished position in the Brillouin zone. bdgw gives the minimum/maximum band whose energies are calculated for the given k-point.

There is an additional parameter, called zcut, related to the self-energy computation. It is meant to avoid some divergencies that might occur in the calculation due to integrable poles along the integration path.

####

#### 1.e Examination of the output file.

Let us hope now that your calculation has been completed, and that we can examine the output file. So, please edit the tgw1_1.out file.

The first departure from the usual information present in the output file for usual GS calculations appears after the SCF cycles of DATASET 1 :

    ======================================================================
     Calculating and writing out Kohn-Sham electronic Structure file
     Using diagonalized wavefunctions and energies (kssform=1)
     number of Gamma centered plane waves    483
     number of Gamma centered shells     25
     number of bands    283

This section was issued when the Hamiltonian at the different k points were diagonalized, after the SCF cycles, in order to generate the KSS file. Then, comes the output of the numerous eigenvalues at the different k-points. Finally, the normalisation and orthogonalisation of the eigenvectors is tested. One should obtain close to perfect normalisation and orthogonalisation at that stage :

     Test on the normalization of the wavefunctions
      min sum_G |a(n,k,G)| =  1.000000
      max sum_G |a(n,k,G)| =  1.000000
     Test on the orthogonalization of the wavefunctions
      min sum_G a(n,k,G)* a(n',k,G) =  0.000000
      max sum_G a(n,k,G)* a(n',k,G) =  0.000000

Of course, if we post-cutoff the wavefunctions by using a reduced value for npwkss this results in a reduction in the orthonormalization of the wavefunctions.

Then, follows the usual information for the dataset 1. The dataset 2 drives the computation of the susceptibility and dielectric matrices, in preparation of the GW energy calculation of dataset 3. After some general information (origin of KSS file, header, description of unit cell), comes the echo of Kohn-Sham eigenenergies (in eV), and then the evaluation of the wavefunction normalisation and orthogonalisation USING ONLY THE PLANEWAVE SET DEFINED BY ecutwfn, npwwfn, or nshwfn. Thus, there is no surprise that these relations are not fulfilled :

     test on the normalization of the wavefunctions
     min sum_G |a(n,k,G)| =  0.497559
     max sum_G |a(n,k,G)| =  0.995840
     test on the orthogonalization of the wavefunctions
     min sum_G a(n,k,G)* a(n",k,G) =  0.000000
     max sum_G a(n,k,G)* a(n",k,G) =  0.179460

The squared norm of one of the wavefunctions is even as low as one half ! This should lead us to question the choice of ecutwfn that we have made : we will need a convergence study, see later.

The parameters of the FFT grid needed to represent the wavefunction and compute their convolution (so as to get the screening matrices) are then given.

Then, the grid of q-point (in the Irreducible part of the Brillouin Zone) on which the susceptibility and dielectric matrices will be computed is given. It is a set of BZ points defined as all the possible differences among the k-points (q=k-k') of the grid chosen to generate the KSS file. From the last statement it is clear the interest to choose homogenous k-point grids, not to explose the number of q-points.

On the basis of only the average density, one can obtain the classical Drude plasmon frequency The next lines calculate the average density of the system, and evaluate the r_s parameter, then compute the Drude plasmon frequency. This is the value used by default for the parameter ppmfrq. It is in fact the second frequency where the code calculates the dielectric matrix to adjust the plasmon-pole model parameters. It has been found that Drude plasma frequency is a reasonable value where to adjust the model. The control over this parameter is however left to the user in order to check that the result does not change when changing ppmfrq. If it is the case, then the plasmon-pole model is not appropriated and one should go beyond by taking into account a full dynamical dependence in the screening (not still implemented in ABINIT). However, the plasmon-pole model has been found to work well for a very large range of systems when focusing only on the real part of the GW corrections.

At the end of the screening calculation, the macroscopic dielectric constant is printed:

     dielectric constant = 13.8476
     dielectric constant without local fields = 15.5520

Note that the convergence in the dielectric constant DOES NOT guarantee the convergence in the GW correction values at the end of the calculation. In fact, the dielectric constant is representative of only one element, the head, of the full dielectric matrix. Even if the convergence on the dielectric constant with local fields takes somehow into account also other non-diagonal elements. In a GW calculation all the \epsilon^-1 matrix is used to build the Self-Energy operator.
The dielectric constant here reported is the so-called RPA dielectric constant due to the electrons. Although evaluated at zero frequency, it is understood that the ionic response is not included. This is to be contrasted with the one computed in ANADDB). The RPA dielectric constant restricted to electronic effects is also not the same as the one computed in the RESPFN part of ABINIT, that includes exchange-correlation effects.

We enter now the third dataset. As for dataset 2, after some general information (origin of KSS file, header, description of unit cell), the echo of Kohn-Sham eigenenergies (in eV), the evaluation of the wavefunction normalisation, the description of the FFT grid and jellium parameters, there is the echo of parameters for the plasmon-pole model, and the inverse dielectric function (the screening). The self-energy operator has been constructed, and one can evaluate the GW energies, for each of the states.

The results follows :

    k =   -0.125   0.000   0.000
     Band     E0  <VxcLDA>   SigX SigC(E0)    Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0     E
        4   5.616 -11.115 -12.334   1.257   0.775  -0.290 -11.085   0.030   5.646
        5   8.357 -10.140  -5.951  -3.336   0.779  -0.284  -9.476   0.664   9.021

     E^0_gap          2.741
     E^GW_gap         3.375
     DeltaE^GW_gap    0.634

For the desired k-point, state 4, then state 5, one finds different information:

- E0 is the Kohn-Sham eigenenergy
- VxcLDA gives the average Kohn-Sham exchange-correlation potential
- SigX gives the exchange contribution to the self-energy
- SigC(E0) gives the correlation contribution to the self-energy, evaluated at the Kohn-Sham eigenenergy
- Z is the renormalisation factor
- dSigC/dE is the energy derivative of SigC with respect to the energy
- SigC(E) gives the correlation contribution to the self-energy, evaluated at the GW energy
- E-E0 is the difference between GW energy and Kohn-Sham eigenenergy
- E is the GW energy

In this case, the gap is also analyzed : E^0_gap is the direct Kohn-Sham gap at that k point (and spin, in case of spin-polarized calculations), E^GW_gap is the GW one, and DeltaE^GW_gap is the difference. This direct gap is always computed between the band whose number is equal to the number of electrons in the cell divided by two (integer part, in case of spin-polarized calculation), and the next one. (Warning : for a metal, these two bands do not systematically lie below and above the Fermi energy - but the concept of a direct gap is not relevant in that case).

It is seen that the average Kohn-Sham exchange-correlation potential for the state 4 (a valence state) is very close to the exchange self-energy correction. For that state, the correlation correction is small, and the difference between Kohn-Sham and GW energies is also small (43 meV). By contrast, the exchange self-energy is much smaller than the average Kohn-Sham potential for the state 5 (a conduction state), but the correlation correction is much larger than for state 4. On the whole, the difference between Kohn-Sham and GW energies is not very large, but nevertheless, it is quite important when compared with the size of the gap.

###

2 Preparing convergence studies : Kohn-Sham structure (KSS file) and screening (SCR file).

In the following sections, we will perform different convergence analyses, because this is such an important task. In order to keep the CPU time at a reasonable level, we will use fake KSS and screening data, by limiting ourselves to the Gamma point only. In that way, we will verify convergence aspects that could be very cumbersome (at least in the framework of a tutorial) if more k-points were used.

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_2.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_2.in file, and take the time to examine it. Note that the SCF cycles have been disconnected from the generation of the KSS file.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_2.log &

This small job lasts about 10 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

After that step you will need the KSS and SCR files produced in this run for the next runs (up to 6.8). Move tgw1_xo_DS2_KSS to tgw1_xo_DS1_KSS and tgw1_xo_DS3_SCR to tgw1_xo_DS1_SCR.

The next 6 sections are intended to show you how to find the converged parameters for a GW calculation.

###

3 Convergence on the number of planewaves in the wavefunctions to calculate the Self-Energy.

We begin by the convergence study on the three parameters needed in the self-energy calculation (optdriver=4). This is because for these, we will not need a double dataset loop to check this convergence, and we will rely on the previously determined SCR file.

First, we check the convergence on the number of planewaves to describe the wavefunctions, in the calculation of the Self-Energy. This will be done by defining five datasets, with increasing ecutwfn:

    ndtset     5
    ecutwfn:  3.0
    ecutwfn+  1.0

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_3.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_3.in file, and take the time to examine it.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_3.log &

This small job lasts about 10 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

Edit the output file. The number of plane waves used for the wavefunctions in the computation of the self-energy is mentioned in the fragments of output :

     SIGMA fundamental parameters:
     PLASMON POLE MODEL
     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  169
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            169
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions            59

Gathering the GW energies for each planewave set, one gets :

     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions            59
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.637 -15.237   3.897   0.806  -0.240 -11.398   0.239   6.154
        5   8.445  -9.653  -3.222  -5.460   0.819  -0.222  -8.858   0.795   9.240

     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           113
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.789   0.804  -0.244 -11.492   0.148   6.063
        5   8.445  -9.675  -3.213  -5.564   0.817  -0.224  -8.941   0.734   9.179

     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           137
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.779   0.804  -0.244 -11.499   0.139   6.055
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.577   0.817  -0.225  -8.957   0.730   9.175

     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           169
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.636 -15.242   3.770   0.804  -0.245 -11.505   0.132   6.047
        5   8.445  -9.701  -3.221  -5.584   0.817  -0.225  -8.970   0.732   9.177

     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           259
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.652 -15.253   3.766   0.803  -0.245 -11.519   0.133   6.048
        5   8.445  -9.700  -3.219  -5.591   0.816  -0.225  -8.974   0.726   9.172

So that npwwfn=137 (ecutwfn=5.0) can be considered converged within 0.01eV.

###

4 Convergence on the number of planewaves to calculate Sigma_x.

Second, we check the convergence on the number of planewaves in the calculation of the Sigma_X. This will be done by defining five datasets, with increasing ecutsigx:

    ndtset     7
    ecutsigx:  3.0
    ecutsigx+  1.0

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_4.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_4.in file, and take the time to examine it.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_4.log &

This small job lasts about 12 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

Edit the output file. The number of plane waves used for Sigma_X is mentioned in the fragments of output :

     SIGMA fundamental parameters:
     PLASMON POLE MODEL
     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                   59
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W             59

Gathering the GW energies for each planewave set, one gets :

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                   59
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W             59
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.195   3.862   0.806  -0.241 -11.392   0.247   6.162
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.177  -5.595   0.818  -0.223  -8.938   0.748   9.193

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  113
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            113
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.235   3.795   0.804  -0.244 -11.479   0.160   6.075
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.210  -5.581   0.817  -0.224  -8.955   0.731   9.176

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  137
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            137
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.241   3.785   0.804  -0.244 -11.492   0.147   6.062
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.213  -5.577   0.817  -0.224  -8.955   0.732   9.177

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  169
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            169
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.779   0.804  -0.244 -11.499   0.139   6.055
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.577   0.817  -0.225  -8.957   0.730   9.175

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  259
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            169
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.247   3.779   0.804  -0.244 -11.501   0.138   6.053
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.218  -5.577   0.817  -0.225  -8.958   0.728   9.173

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  283
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            169
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.247   3.779   0.804  -0.244 -11.501   0.138   6.053
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.218  -5.577   0.817  -0.225  -8.958   0.728   9.173

     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  283
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            169
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.247   3.779   0.804  -0.244 -11.501   0.138   6.053
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.218  -5.577   0.817  -0.225  -8.958   0.728   9.173

So that npwsigx=169 (ecutsigx=6.0) can be considered converged within 0.01eV.

###

5 Convergence on the number of bands to calculate the Self-Energy.

At last, as concerns the computation of the self-energy, we check the convergence on the number of bands in the calculation of the Sigma. This will be done by defining five datasets, with increasing nband:

    ndtset  5
    nband:  50
    nband+  50

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_5.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_5.in file, and take the time to examine it.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_5.log &

This small job lasts about 12 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

Edit the output file. The number of bands used for the self-energy is mentioned in the fragments of output :

     SIGMA fundamental parameters:
     PLASMON POLE MODEL
     number of plane-waves for SigmaX                  169
     number of plane-waves for SigmaC and W            169
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           137
     number of bands                                    50

Gathering the GW energies for each number of bands, one gets :

     number of bands                                   50
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.853   0.804  -0.243 -11.440   0.199   6.114
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.507   0.817  -0.224  -8.899   0.787   9.232

     number of bands                                  100
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.779   0.804  -0.244 -11.499   0.139   6.055
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.577   0.817  -0.225  -8.957   0.730   9.175

     number of bands                                  150
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.771   0.804  -0.244 -11.506   0.133   6.048
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.585   0.817  -0.225  -8.963   0.723   9.168

     number of bands                                  200
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.769   0.804  -0.244 -11.507   0.132   6.047
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.587   0.817  -0.225  -8.964   0.722   9.167

     number of bands                                  250
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.769   0.804  -0.244 -11.507   0.131   6.047
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.587   0.817  -0.225  -8.964   0.722   9.167

So that nband=100 can be considered converged within 0.01eV.

At this stage, we know that for the self-energy computation, we need ecutwfn=5.0 ecutsigx=6.0, nband=100 .

###

6 Convergence on the number of planewaves in the wavefunctions to calculate the screening (epsilon^-1).

Now, we come back to the calculation of the screening. Adequate convergence studies will couple the change of parameters for optdriver=3 with a computation of the GW energy changes. One cannot rely on the convergence of the macroscopic dielectric constant to assess the convergence of the GW energies.

As a consequence, we will define a double loop over the datasets:

    ndtset      10
    udtset      5  2

The datasets 12,22,32,42 and 52, drive the computation of the GW energies :

    # Calculation of the Self-Energy matrix elements (GW corrections)
    optdriver?2  4
    getscr?2     -1
    ecutwfn?2    5.0
    ecutsigx      6.0
    nband?2      100

The datasets 11,21,31,41 and 51, drive the corresponding computation of the screening :

    # Calculation of the screening (epsilon^-1 matrix)
    optdriver?1  3

In this latter series, we will have to vary the three different parameters ecutwfn, ecuteps and nband.

First, we check the convergence on the number of planewaves to describe the wavefunctions, in the calculation of the screening. This will be done by defining five datasets, with increasing ecutwfn:

    ecutwfn:?   3.0
    ecutwfn+?   1.0

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_6.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_6.in file, and take the time to examine it.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_6.log &

This small job lasts about 15 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

Edit the output file. The number of plane waves used for the wavefunctions in the computation of the screening is mentioned in the fragments of output :

     EPSILON^-1 parameters (SCR file):
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                    169
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions            59

Gathering the macroscopic dielectric constant and GW energies for each planewave set, one gets :

     dielectric constant = 101.5301
     dielectric constant without local fields = 147.3095
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions            59
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.799   0.806  -0.241 -11.483   0.156   6.071
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.555   0.816  -0.225  -8.939   0.747   9.193

     dielectric constant =  99.5265
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7208
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           113
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.769   0.804  -0.244 -11.507   0.132   6.047
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.582   0.815  -0.226  -8.961   0.725   9.170

     dielectric constant =  98.2598
     dielectric constant without local fields = 142.5982
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           137
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.762   0.801  -0.248 -11.514   0.125   6.040
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.588   0.815  -0.227  -8.967   0.720   9.165

     dielectric constant =  97.6265
     dielectric constant without local fields = 142.1664
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           169
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.759   0.804  -0.244 -11.516   0.123   6.038
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.590   0.815  -0.227  -8.969   0.717   9.163

     dielectric constant =  96.4286
     dielectric constant without local fields = 140.5466
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           259
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.760   0.803  -0.245 -11.515   0.124   6.039
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.592   0.815  -0.227  -8.970   0.717   9.162

So that npwwfn=113 (ecutwfn=4.0) can be considered converged within 0.01eV.

###

7 Convergence on the number of bands to calculate the screening.

Second, we check the convergence on the number of bands in the calculation of the screening. This will be done by defining five datasets, with increasing nband:

    nband11  25
    nband21  50
    nband31  100
    nband41  150
    nband51  200

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_7.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_7.in file, and take the time to examine it.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_7.log &

This small job lasts about 22 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

Edit the output file. The number of bands used for the wavefunctions in the computation of the screening is mentioned in the fragments of output :

     EPSILON^-1 parameters (SCR file):
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                    169
     number of plane-waves for wavefunctions           113
     number of bands                                    25

Gathering the macroscopic dielectric constant and GW energies for each number of bands, one gets :

     dielectric constant =  99.5265
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7208
     number of bands                                    25
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.769   0.804  -0.244 -11.507   0.132   6.047
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.582   0.815  -0.226  -8.961   0.725   9.170

     dielectric constant = 100.6436
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7240
     number of bands                                    50
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.587   0.804  -0.244 -11.654  -0.015   5.900
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.764   0.815  -0.227  -9.110   0.576   9.021

     dielectric constant = 101.1764
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     number of bands                                   100
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.516   0.804  -0.244 -11.711  -0.072   5.843
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.846   0.811  -0.233  -9.179   0.507   8.952

     dielectric constant = 101.2028
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     number of bands                                   150
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.510   0.804  -0.244 -11.715  -0.077   5.839
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.853   0.810  -0.234  -9.186   0.501   8.946

     dielectric constant = 101.2128
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     number of bands                                   200
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.509   0.803  -0.246 -11.716  -0.077   5.838
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.854   0.812  -0.231  -9.185   0.501   8.946

So that the computation using 100 bands can be considered converged within 0.01eV.

###

8 Convergence on the dimension of the epsilon^-1 matrix.

Third, we check the convergence on the number of plane waves in the calculation of the screening. This will be done by defining six datasets, with increasing ecuteps:

    ecuteps:?     3.0
    ecuteps+?     1.0

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_8.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. Edit the tgw1_8.in file, and take the time to examine it.
Then, issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_8.log &

This small job lasts about 25 secs on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz.

Edit the output file. The number of bands used for the wavefunctions in the computation of the screening is mentioned in the fragments of output :

     EPSILON^-1 parameters (SCR file):
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                     59

Gathering the macroscopic dielectric constant and GW energies for each number of bands, one gets :

     dielectric constant = 102.1281
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                     59
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.684   0.806  -0.241 -11.576   0.063   5.978
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.847   0.811  -0.232  -9.180   0.506   8.951

     dielectric constant = 101.2712
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                    113
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.559   0.804  -0.243 -11.677  -0.038   5.877
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.850   0.811  -0.233  -9.182   0.504   8.949

     dielectric constant = 101.2649
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                    137
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.535   0.804  -0.244 -11.696  -0.057   5.858
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.846   0.811  -0.232  -9.179   0.507   8.952

     dielectric constant = 101.1764
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                    169
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.516   0.804  -0.244 -11.711  -0.072   5.843
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.846   0.811  -0.233  -9.179   0.507   8.952

     dielectric constant = 101.1384
     dielectric constant without local fields = 143.7244
     dimension of the eps^-1 matrix                    259
        4   5.915 -11.639 -15.244   3.517   0.804  -0.244 -11.710  -0.072   5.844
        5   8.445  -9.686  -3.216  -5.845   0.811  -0.232  -9.179   0.507   8.953

So that npweps=169 (ecuteps=6.0) can be considered converged within 0.01eV.

At this stage, we know that for the screening computation, we need ecutwfn=4.0 ecuteps=6.0, nband=100 .

Of course, until now, we have skipped the most difficult part of the convergence tests : the number of k-points. It is as important to check the convergence on this parameter, than on the other ones. However, this might be very time consuming, since the CPU time scales as the square of the number of k points (roughly), and the number of k-points can increase very rapidly from one possible grid to the next denser one. This is why we will leave this out of the present tutorial, and consider that we already know a sufficient k-point grid, for the last calculation.

###

9 Calculation of the GW corrections for the band gap in Gamma.

Now we try to perform a GW calculation for a real problem: the calculation of the GW corrections for the direct band gap of bulk Silicon in Gamma.

In directory ~abinit/tests/tutorial/Input/Work_gw1, copy the file ../tgw1_9.in, and modify the tgw1_x.files file as usual. DO NOT EDIT IT NOW.
Issue :

    ../../abinis < tgw1_x.files >& tgw1_9.log &

This job lasts about 20 minutes on a PC PIV Intel 2.2 GHz. Because it is so long, it was worth to run it before the examination of the input file.

Now, you can examine it.
We need the usual part of the input file to perform a ground state calculation. This is done in dataset 1 and at the end we print out the density. We use a 4x4x4 FCC grid (so, 256 k points in the full Brillouin Zone), shifted, because it is the most economical. It gives 10 k-points in the Irreducible part of the Brillouin Zone. However, this k-point grid does not contains the Gamma point, and, at present, one cannot perform calculations of the self-energy corrections for other k points than those present in the grid of k-points in the KSS file.

Then in dataset 2 we perform a non self-consistent calculation to calculate the Kohn-Sham structure in a set of 19 k-points in the Irreducible Brillouin Zone. This set of k-points is also derived from a 4x4x4 FCC grid, but a NON-SHIFTED one. It has the same density of points as the 10 k-point set, but the symmetries are not used in a very efficient way. However, this set contains the Gamma point, which allows us to tackle the computation of the band gap at this point.

In dataset 3 we calculate the screening. The screening calculation is very time-consuming. So, we have decided to weaken a bit the parameters found in the previous convergence studies. Indeed, ecutwfn has been decreased from 4.0 to 3.6 . This is rather innocuous. Also, nband has been decreased from 100 to 25. This is a drastic change. The CPU time of this part is linear with respect to this paramater (or more exacly, with the number of conduction bands). Thus, the CPU time has been decreased by a factor of 4. Referring to our previous convergence study, we see that the absolute accuracy on the GW energies is now on the order of 0.2 eV only. However, the gap energy (difference between valence and conduction states), that is the relative accuracy, is likely correct within 0.02 eV. It is very important to clarify this point: in bulk systems what matters is only the relative accuracy. There is no zero of the energy defined for a bulk system. Hence in these systems one CAN WELL check the convergence only on the relative accuracy on the energies rather than the absolute, by checking the convergence on the band gap for example. This will reduce a lot the values to be found for the convergence parameters. The same holds for 2-, 1-, and 0-dimensional systems if one is interested only on relative energies and is not interested in calculating quantities like the work function.

Finally in dataset 4 we calculate the self-energy matrix element in Gamma, using the previously determined parameters.

You should obtain the following results:

     k =    0.000   0.000   0.000
     Band     E0  VxcLDA    SigX SigC(E0)      Z dSigC/dE  Sig(E)    E-E0       E
        4   5.915 -11.238 -12.425   0.861   0.771  -0.296 -11.489  -0.251   5.664
        5   8.445 -10.049  -5.858  -3.690   0.772  -0.296  -9.662   0.387   8.833

     E^0_gap          2.530
     E^GW_gap         3.169
     DeltaE^GW_gap    0.639

So that the LDA energy gap in Gamma is about 2.53eV, while the GW correction is about 0.64eV, so that the GW band gap found is 3.17eV.

One can compare now what have been obtained to what one can get from the litterature.

     EXP         3.40 eV   Landolt-Boernstein

     LDA         2.57 eV   L. Hedin, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965)
     LDA         2.57 eV   M.S. Hybertsen and S. Louie, PRL 55, 1418 (1985)
     LDA (FLAPW) 2.55 eV   N. Hamada, M. Hwang and A.J. Freeman, PRB 41, 3620 (1990)
     LDA (PAW)   2.53 eV   B. Arnaud and M. Alouani, PRB 62, 4464 (2000)
     LDA         2.53 eV   present work

     GW          3.27 eV   M.S. Hybertsen and S. Louie, PRL 55, 1418 (1985)
     GW          3.35 eV   M.S. Hybertsen and S. Louie, PRB 34, 5390 (1986)
     GW          3.30 eV   R.W. Godby, M. Schlueter, L.J. Sham, PRB 37, 10159 (1988)
     GW  (FLAPW) 3.30 eV   N. Hamada, M. Hwang and A.J. Freeman, PRB 41, 3620 (1990)
     GW  (PAW)   3.15 eV   B. Arnaud and M. Alouani, PRB 62, 4464 (2000)
     GW  (FLAPW) 3.12 eV   W. Ku and A.G. Eguiluz, PRL 89, 126401 (2002)
     GW          3.17 eV   present work

The values are spread over an interval of 0.2eV. They depend on the details of the calculation. In the case of pseudopotential calculations, they depend of course on the pseudopotential used. However, a GW result is hardly meaningful beyond 0.1 eV, in the present state of the art. But this goes also with the other source of inaccuracy, the choice of the pseudopotential, that can arrive up to even 0.2 eV. This can also be taken into account when choosing the level of accuracy for the convergence parameters in the GW calculation.

Finally, it is in principle possible to calculate a full band plot of a system. This is a very cumbersome calculation, above all for the fact that there is still not enough automatization at the actual state of the code. The way to perform a full band plot is by shifting the k-point grid where the convergence has been achieved, such as to cover all the desired k-point positions to be reported in the band plot. A simplification can also be represented by the fact that the GW corrections are quite linear with the energy. This is evident when reporting on a plot the GW correction with respect to the 0-order LDA energy for each state. One can then interpolate the GW correction for the k-points where it has not been calculated explicitly.

### 10 Advanced features in the GW code

The user might switch to the second GW tutorial before coming back to the present section.

#### Calculations without using the Plasmon-Pole model

In order to circumvent the plasmon-pole model, the GW frequency convolution has to be calculated explicitly along the real axis. This is a tough job, since G and W have poles along this line. This is therefore more convenient to use another path of integration along the imaginary axis plus the residues enclosed in the path.

Consequently, it is better to evaluate the screening for imaginary frequencies (to perform the integration) and also for real frequencies (to evaluate the contributions of the residues that may enter into the path of integration). The number of imaginary frequencies is set by the input variable nfreqim. The regular grid of real frequencies is determined by the input variables nfreqre, which sets the number of real frequencies, and freqremax, which indicates the maximum real frequency used.

The method is particularly suited to output the spectral function (contained in file out.sig). The grid of real frequencies used to calculate the spectral function is set by the number of frequencies (input variable nfreqsp) and by the maximum frequency calculated (input variable freqspmax).

#### Self-consistent calculations

The details in the implementation and the justification for the approximations retained can be found in F. Bruneval, N. Vast, and L. Reining, Phys. Rev. B 74, 045102 (2006).
The only added input variables are getqps and irdqps. These variables concerns the reading of the _QPS file, that contains the eigenvalues and the unitary transform matrices of a previous quasiparticle calculation. QPS stands for "QuasiParticle Structure".
The only modified input variables for self-consistent calculations are gwcalctyp and bdgw.
When the variable gwcalctyp is in between 0 and 9, The code calculates the quasiparticle energies only and does not output any QPS file (as in a standard GW run).
When the variable gwcalctyp is in between 10 and 19, the code calculates the quasiparticle energies only and outputs them in a QPS file.
When the variable gwcalctyp is in between 20 and 29, the code calculates the quasiparticle energies and wavefunctions and outputs them in a QPS file.
For a full self-consistency calculation, the quasiparticle wavefunctions are expanded in the basis set of the Kohn-Sham wavefunctions. The variable bdgw now indicates the size of all matrices to be calculated and diagonalized. The quasiparticle wavefunctions are consequently linear combinations of the Kohn-Sham wavefunctions in between the min and max values of bdgw.

A correct self-consistent calculation should consist of the following runs:

- 1) Self-consistent Kohn-Sham calculation: outputs a KSS file
- 2) Screening calculation (with Kohn-Sham inputs): outputs a SCR file
- 3) Sigma calculation (with Kohn-Sham inputs): outputs a QPS file
- 4) Screening calculation (with the KSS, and QPS file as an input): outputs a new SCR file
- 5) Sigma calculation (with the KSS, QPS and the new SCR files): outputs a new QPS file
- 6) Screening calculation (with the KSS, the new QPS file): outputs a newer SCR file
- 7) Sigma calculation (with the KSS, the newer QPS and SCR files): outputs a newer QPS
- ............ and so on, until the desired accuracy is reached

Note that for Hartree-Fock calculations a dummy screening is required for initialization reasons. Therefore, a correct HF calculations should look like

- 1) Self-consistent Kohn-Sham calculation: outputs a KSS file
- 2) Screening calculation using very low convergence parameters (with Kohn-Sham inputs): output a dummy SCR file
- 3) Sigma calculation (with Kohn-Sham inputs): outputs a QPS file
- 4) Sigma calculation (with the KSS and QPS files): outputs a new QPS file
- 5) Sigma calculation (with the KSS and the new QPS file): outputs a newer QPS file
- ............ and so on, until the desired accuracy is reached

In the case of a self-consistent calculation, the output is slightly more complex:
For instance, iteration 2

     k =    0.500   0.250   0.000
     Band     E_lda  <Vxclda>    E(N-1) <Hhartree>    SigX  SigC[E(N-1)]    Z     dSigC/dE  Sig[E(N)]  DeltaE  E(N)_pert E(N)_diago
        1    -3.422   -10.273    -3.761     6.847   -15.232     4.034     1.000     0.000   -11.198    -0.590    -4.351    -4.351
        2    -0.574   -10.245    -0.850     9.666   -13.806     2.998     1.000     0.000   -10.807    -0.291    -1.141    -1.141
        3     2.242    -9.606     2.513    11.841   -11.452     1.931     1.000     0.000    -9.521    -0.193     2.320     2.320
        4     3.595   -10.267     4.151    13.866   -11.775     1.842     1.000     0.000    -9.933    -0.217     3.934     3.934
        5     7.279    -8.804     9.916    16.078    -4.452    -1.592     1.000     0.000    -6.044     0.119    10.034    10.035
        6    10.247    -9.143    13.462    19.395    -4.063    -1.775     1.000     0.000    -5.838     0.095    13.557    13.557
        7    11.488    -9.704    15.159    21.197    -4.061    -1.863     1.000     0.000    -5.924     0.113    15.273    15.273
        8    11.780    -9.180    15.225    20.958    -3.705    -1.893     1.000     0.000    -5.598     0.135    15.360    15.360

     E^0_gap          3.684
     E^GW_gap         5.764
     DeltaE^GW_gap    2.080

The columns are

- Band: index of the band
- E_lda: LDA eigenvalue
- <Vxclda>: diagonal expectation value of the xc potential in between LDA bra and ket
- E(N-1): quasiparticle energy of the preceeding iteration (equal to LDA for the first iteration)
- <Hhartree>: diagonal expectation value of the Hartree Hamiltonian (equal to E_lda - <Vxclda> for the first iteration only)
- SigX: diagonal expectation value of the exchange self-energy
- SigC[E(N-1)]: diagonal expectation value of the correlation self-energy (evaluated for the energy of the preceeding iteration)
- Z: quasiparticle renormalization factor Z (taken equal to 1 in methods HF, SEX, COHSEX and model GW)
- dSigC/dE: Derivative of the correlation self-energy with respect to the energy
- Sig[E(N)]: Total self-energy for the new quasiparticle energy
- DeltaE: Energy difference with respect to the previous step
- E(N)_pert: QP energy as obtained by the usual perturbative method
- E(N)_diago: QP energy as obtained by the full diagonalization

Goto : ABINIT home Page | Suggested acknowledgments | List of input variables | Tutorial home page | Bibliography

Help files : New user's guide | Abinis (main) | Abinis (respfn) | Mrgddb | Anaddb | AIM (Bader) | Cut3D | Optic | Mrgscr