2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.commatsci.2019.109137
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A systematic determination of hubbard U using the GBRV ultrasoft pseudopotential set

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Next, in the case of d 0 TM-containing materials, the U values computed for the partially occupied d states were applied to either 3d, 4d, or 5d states depending on the TM period in the periodic table. In general, the smaller the principal quantum number the larger the localization of the d orbitals (because they are closer to the nucleus); thus, the value of U is expected to be larger for 3d states than for 4d and 5d states [117]. Indeed, we see this trend for the U values of the TM d 0 elements in Table 2.…”
Section: Hubbard U Parameters From First Principlesmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Next, in the case of d 0 TM-containing materials, the U values computed for the partially occupied d states were applied to either 3d, 4d, or 5d states depending on the TM period in the periodic table. In general, the smaller the principal quantum number the larger the localization of the d orbitals (because they are closer to the nucleus); thus, the value of U is expected to be larger for 3d states than for 4d and 5d states [117]. Indeed, we see this trend for the U values of the TM d 0 elements in Table 2.…”
Section: Hubbard U Parameters From First Principlesmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…Several approaches exist for estimating the correct U values from first‐principles calculations, for example by using a linear response approach or from constrained random phase approximation calculations . Nevertheless, the U values estimated by these methods often do not fully correct the band gap problem and thus, it is not clear what value of U must be used to obtain accurate band gaps values.…”
Section: Methodological Developmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The level of DFT that is used here has been shown to underestimate the bandgaps, but has been shown previously to capture the qualitative trends we are studying. 35,36 All atoms are represented as ultrasoft GBRV-type pseudopotentials, 37,38 and all calculations use a plane-wave cutoff of 40 Ry for the wavefunction and 320 Ry for the charge density. The convergence criterion for self-consistent relaxations was a maximum residual force of 5 meV/Å per atom, and all atoms are allowed to relax during structural optimizations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%