4.7 Article

Soft and transferable pseudopotentials from multi-objective optimization

期刊

COMPUTER PHYSICS COMMUNICATIONS
卷 283, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108594

关键词

Pseudopotential; Norm conservation; PBE; Density functional theory; Electronic structure; Evolutionary algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we use multi-objective optimization to maximize the softness of pseudopotentials while maintaining high accuracy and transferability. An evolutionary algorithm is employed to solve the optimization problem and generate a comprehensive table of optimized pseudopotentials. The results show that these pseudopotentials are softer and more accurate compared to existing tables, offering the potential to speed up calculations in various applications.
Ab initio pseudopotentials are a linchpin of modern molecular and condensed matter electronic structure calculations. In this work, we employ multi-objective optimization to maximize pseudopotential softness while maintaining high accuracy and transferability. To accomplish this, we develop a formulation in which softness and accuracy are simultaneously maximized, with accuracy determined by the ability to reproduce all-electron energy differences between Bravais lattice structures, whereupon the resulting Pareto frontier is scanned for the softest pseudopotential that provides the desired accuracy in established transferability tests. We employ an evolutionary algorithm to solve the multi-objective optimization problem and apply it to generate a comprehensive table of optimized norm-conserving Vanderbilt (ONCV) pseudopotentials (https://github .com /SPARC -X /SPMS -psps). We show that the resulting table is softer than existing tables of comparable accuracy, while more accurate than tables of comparable softness. The potentials thus afford the possibility to speed up calculations in a broad range of applications areas while maintaining high accuracy.(c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据