0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessIn the past decades many density-functional theory methods and codes adopting periodic boundary conditions have been developed and are now extensively used in condensed matter physics and materials science research. Only in 2016, however, their precision (i.e., to which extent properties computed with different codes agree among each other) was systematically assessed on elemental crystals: a first crucial step to evaluate the reliability of such computations. We discuss here general recommendations for verification studies aiming at further testing precision and transferability of density-functional-theory computational approaches and codes. We illustrate such recommendations using a greatly expanded protocol covering the whole periodic table from Z=1 to 96 and characterizing 10 prototypical cubic compounds for each element: 4 unaries and 6 oxides, spanning a wide range of coordination numbers and oxidation states. The primary outcome is a reference dataset of 960 equations of state cross-checked between two all-electron codes, then used to verify and improve nine pseudopotential-based approaches. Such effort is facilitated by deploying AiiDA common workflows that perform automatic input parameter selection, provide identical input/output interfaces across codes, and ensure full reproducibility. Finally, we discuss the extent to which the current results for total energies can be reused for different goals (e.g., obtaining formation energies).
Emanuele Bosoni, Louis Beal, Marnik Bercx, Peter Blaha, Stefan Blügel, J. D. Broder, Martin Callsen, Stefaan Cottenier, Augustin Degomme, Vladimir Dikan, Kristjan Eimre, Espen Flage−Larsen, Marco Fornari, Alberto Garcı́a, Luigi Genovese, Matteo Giantomassi, Sebastiaan P. Huber, Henning Janssen, Georg Kastlunger, Matthias Krack, Kresse Georg, Thomas D. Kühne, Kurt Lejaeghere, Georg K. H. Madsen, Martijn Marsman, Nicola Marzari, Gregor Michalicek, Hossein Mirhosseini, Tiziano Müller, Guido Petretto, Chris J. Pickard, Samuel Poncé, Gian‐Marco Rignanese, Oleg Rubel, Thomas Ruh, Michael Sluydts, Danny E. P. Vanpoucke, Sudarshan Vijay, Michael Wolloch, Daniel Wortmann, Aliaksandr V. Yakutovich, Ju‐Song Yu, Austin Zadoks, Bonan Zhu, Giovanni Pizzi (2023). How to verify the precision of density-functional-theory implementations via reproducible and universal workflows. , DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.17274.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Preprint
Year
2023
Authors
45
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
en
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2305.17274
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access