| Literature DB >> 27013736 |
Kurt Lejaeghere1, Gustav Bihlmayer2, Torbjörn Björkman3, Peter Blaha4, Stefan Blügel2, Volker Blum5, Damien Caliste6, Ivano E Castelli7, Stewart J Clark8, Andrea Dal Corso9, Stefano de Gironcoli9, Thierry Deutsch6, John Kay Dewhurst10, Igor Di Marco11, Claudia Draxl12, Marcin Dułak13, Olle Eriksson11, José A Flores-Livas10, Kevin F Garrity14, Luigi Genovese6, Paolo Giannozzi15, Matteo Giantomassi16, Stefan Goedecker17, Xavier Gonze16, Oscar Grånäs18, E K U Gross10, Andris Gulans12, François Gygi19, D R Hamann20, Phil J Hasnip21, N A W Holzwarth22, Diana Iuşan11, Dominik B Jochym23, François Jollet24, Daniel Jones25, Georg Kresse26, Klaus Koepernik27, Emine Küçükbenli28, Yaroslav O Kvashnin11, Inka L M Locht29, Sven Lubeck30, Martijn Marsman26, Nicola Marzari7, Ulrike Nitzsche31, Lars Nordström11, Taisuke Ozaki32, Lorenzo Paulatto33, Chris J Pickard34, Ward Poelmans35, Matt I J Probert21, Keith Refson36, Manuel Richter27, Gian-Marco Rignanese16, Santanu Saha17, Matthias Scheffler37, Martin Schlipf19, Karlheinz Schwarz4, Sangeeta Sharma10, Francesca Tavazza14, Patrik Thunström38, Alexandre Tkatchenko39, Marc Torrent24, David Vanderbilt40, Michiel J van Setten16, Veronique Van Speybroeck1, John M Wills41, Jonathan R Yates25, Guo-Xu Zhang42, Stefaan Cottenier43.
Abstract
The widespread popularity of density functional theory has given rise to an extensive range of dedicated codes for predicting molecular and crystalline properties. However, each code implements the formalism in a different way, raising questions about the reproducibility of such predictions. We report the results of a community-wide effort that compared 15 solid-state codes, using 40 different potentials or basis set types, to assess the quality of the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof equations of state for 71 elemental crystals. We conclude that predictions from recent codes and pseudopotentials agree very well, with pairwise differences that are comparable to those between different high-precision experiments. Older methods, however, have less precise agreement. Our benchmark provides a framework for users and developers to document the precision of new applications and methodological improvements.Year: 2016 PMID: 27013736 DOI: 10.1126/science.aad3000
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Science ISSN: 0036-8075 Impact factor: 47.728