Showing papers by "Paolo Giannozzi published in 2016"
Ghent University1, Forschungszentrum Jülich2, Aalto University3, Åbo Akademi University4, Vienna University of Technology5, Duke University6, University of Grenoble7, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne8, Durham University9, International School for Advanced Studies10, Max Planck Society11, Uppsala University12, Humboldt University of Berlin13, Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society14, Technical University of Denmark15, National Institute of Standards and Technology16, University of Udine17, Université catholique de Louvain18, University of Basel19, Harvard University20, University of California, Davis21, Rutgers University22, University of York23, Wake Forest University24, Science and Technology Facilities Council25, University of Oxford26, University of Vienna27, Dresden University of Technology28, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology29, Radboud University Nijmegen30, University of Tokyo31, Centre national de la recherche scientifique32, University of Cambridge33, Royal Holloway, University of London34, University of California, Santa Barbara35, University of Luxembourg36, Los Alamos National Laboratory37, Harbin Institute of Technology38
TL;DR: A procedure to assess the precision of DFT methods was devised and used to demonstrate reproducibility among many of the most widely used DFT codes, demonstrating that the precisionof DFT implementations can be determined, even in the absence of one absolute reference code.
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.
1,141 citations