ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE WITH DFT: GGA AND BEYOND Jorge Kohanoff Queen’s University Belfast United Kingdom j.kohanoff@qub.ac.uk DENSITY FUNCTIONAL THEORY (DFT): KOHN-SHAM EQUATIONS Kohn-Sham equations: 2 2 KS KS V [ ]( r ) KS n (r) n n (r) 2m N KS (r) (r) (r) n 1 VKS [ ] Vext (r ) KS n (r' ) | r r'| 2 dr ' XC [ ] This PDE must be solved self-consistently, as the KS potential depends on the density, which is constructed with the solutions of the KS equations. EXCHANGE AND CORRELATION IN DFT: THE LOCAL DENSITY APPROXIMATION (LDA) The inhomogeneous electron gas is considered as locally homogeneous: LDA E XC [ ] (r ) XC [ ]( r ) dr LDA XC [ ] ~XC (r, r' ) | r r'| dr ' XC energy density of the HEG (r) LDA HEG g~XC (r, r' ) g~XC (| r r' |, (r)) (r' ) LDA XC hole centred at r, interacts with the electron also at r. The exact XC hole is centred at r’ This is partially compensated by multiplying the pair correlation function with the density ratio (r)/(r’) EXCHANGE AND CORRELATION IN DFT: THE LOCAL DENSITY APPROXIMATION (LDA) Location of the XC hole (Jones and Gunnarsson, 1982) LDA-LSDA: TRENDS AND LIMITATIONS Favors more homogeneous electron densities Overbinds molecules and solids (Hartree-Fock underbinds) Geometries, bond lengths and angles, vibrational frequencies reproduced within 2-3% Dielectric constants overestimated by about 10% Bond lengths too short for weakly bound systems (H-bonds, VDW) Correct chemical trends, e.g. ionization energies Atoms (core electrons) poorly described (HF is much better) XC potential decays exponentially into vacuum regions. It should decay as –e2/r. Hence, it is poor for dissociation and ionization Poor for metallic surfaces and physisorption Very poor for negatively charged ions (self-interaction error) Poor for weakly bound systems: H-bonds (), VDW (non-local) Band gap in semiconductors too small (~40%) Poor for strong on-site correlations (d and f systems, oxides, UO2) BEYOND THE LDA Inhomogeneities in the density Self-interaction cancellation Non-locality in exchange and correlation Strong local correlations Gradient expansions Weighted density approximation Exact exchange in DFT (OEP local vs HF non-local) DFT-HF hybrids Self-interaction correction Van der Waals and RPA functionals LSDA+U Multi-reference Kohn-Sham GW approximation (Many-body) GRADIENT EXPANSIONS: GENERALIZED GRADIENT APPROXIMATION EXC expanded in gradients of the density LSDA EGGA [ ] (r ) XC [ , ]( r ) FXC [ , , s]( r )dr where is the spin polarization (r+dr) r+dr s=||/2kF is the density gradient And FXC is the enhancement factor First-order term is fine, but higher-order terms diverge. Only by some re-summation to ∞-order the expansion converges. GGA: FXC is designed to fulfil a number of exactly known properties, e.g. Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) 1. Exchange: uniform scaling, LSDA limit, spin-scaling relationship, LSDA linear response, Lieb-Oxford bound 2. Correlation: second-order expansion, hole sum rule, vanishes for rapidly varying densities, cancels singularity at high densities PROPERTIES OF THE GGA Improves atomization and surface energies Favors density inhomogeneities Increases lattice parameters of metals Favors non-spherical distortions Improves bond lengths Improves energies and geometries of H-bonded systems There is error cancellation between X and C at short range XC potential still decays exponentially into vacuum regions Some improvement in band gaps in semiconductors What was correct in LDA is worsened in GGA Still incorrect dissociation limit. Fractionally charged fragments Inter-configurational errors in IP and EA Error cancellation between X and C is not complete at long-range. X hole is more long-ranged than XC hole HYBRID FUNCTIONALS Combine GGA local exchange with Hartree-Fock non-local exchange: EHYBRID [ ] EXGGA [ ] (1 )EXHF [ ] ECGGA [ ] Parameter fitted to experimental data for molecules (~0.75), or determined from known properties. PBE0, B3LYP, HSE06 Properties: 1. Quite accurate in many respects, e.g. energies and geometries 2. Improve on the self-interaction error, but not fully SI-free 3. Improve on band gaps 4. Improve on electron affinities 5. Better quality than MP2 6. Fitted hybrids unsatisfactory from the theoretical point of view SELF-INTERACTION CORRECTION (SIC) Self-interaction can be removed at the level of classical electrostatics: 1 (r ) (r ' ) EH drdr ' 2 | r r'| (r) n (r' ) 1 N Perdew-Zunger 1982 ESIC EH n drdr' Mauri, Sprik, Suraud 2 n1 | r r'| (n) VSIC (r) VH (r) n (r' ) | r r'| dr' Potential is state-dependent. Hence it is not an eigenvalue problem anymore, but a system of coupled PDEs Orthogonality of SIC orbitals not guaranteed, but it can be imposed (Suraud) Similar to HF, but the Slater determinant of SIC orbitals is not invariant against orbital transformations The result depends on the choice of orbitals (localization) DYNAMICAL CORRELATION: VDW Van der Waals (dispersion) interactions: are a dynamical non-local correlation effect Dipole-induced dipole interaction due to quantum density fluctuations in spatially separated fragments 1(r,t) 2(r,t) Functional (Dion et al 2004): 1(t) EVDW (r ) (r, r ' ) (r ' ) drdr ' E1(t).2(t) = VDW kernel fully non-local. Depends on (r) and (r’) Expensive double integral Efficient implementations (Roman-Perez and Soler 2009) Good approximations based on dynamical response theory Beyond VDW: Random Phase Approximation (Furche) DYNAMICAL CORRELATION: VDW AND BEYOND Empirical approaches: C6IJ ( RIJ ) f IJ ( RIJ ) RIJ6 IJ P EVDW With f a function that removes smoothly the singularity at R=0, and interferes very little with GGA (local) correlation. Grimme (2006): C6 parameters from atomic calculations. Extensive parameterization: DFT-D. Tkatchenko and Scheffler (2009): C6 parameters dependent on the density. Random Phase Approximation (RPA): captures VDW and beyond. Can be safely combined wit exact exchange (SIC). Infinite order perturbation (like Coupled clusters in QC). Furche (2008); Paier et al (2010); Hesselmann and Görling (2011) STRONG STATIC CORRELATION: LSDA+U Strong onsite Coulomb correlations are ot captured by LDA/GGA These are important for localized (d and f) electronic bands, where many electrons share the same spatial region: self-interaction problem Semi-empirical solution: separate occupied and empty state by an additional energy U as in Hubbard’s model: 1 1 E LSDA U ELSDA U U N ( N 1) U f i f j 2 2 i j fi=orbital occupations This induces a splitting in the KS eigenvalues: E 1 i LSDA U iLSDA U f f i 2 iocc iLSDA U / 2 iempty iLSDA U / 2 SUMMARY OF DFT APPROXIMATIONS ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE OF UO2 Using the quantum-espresso package (http://www.quantum-espresso.org/) Pseudopotentials Plane wave basis set • • PROPERTIES fluorite structure fcc, 3 atoms un unit cell Lattice constant = 10.26 Bohr Electronic insulator. Eg=2.1 eV Electronic configuration of U: [Rn]7s26d15f3 U4+: f2 5f-band partially occupied (2/7) UO2: splitted by crystal field: t1u(3)+t2u(3)+ag(1) Still partially occupied (2/3) Jahn-Teller distortion opens gap. PSEUDOPOTENTIAL CONVERGENCE WITH ENERGY CUTOFF ENERGY-VOLUME CURVE GGA(PBE) DENSITY OF STATES GGA+U DENSITY OF STATES GGA+U DENSITY OF STATES: DISTORTED VAN DER WAALS FOR IMIDAZOLIUM SALTS An important family of Room Temperature Ionic Liquids (Green solvents) Competing electrostatic vs dispersion interactions Large systems studied with DFT, within LDA or GGA [Del Popolo, Lynden-Bell and Kohanoff, JPCB 109, 5895 (2005)] Force fields fitted to DFT-GGA calculations [Youngs, Del Popolo and Kohanoff, JPCB 110, 5697 (2006)] Electrostatics well described in DFT (LDA or GGA) Dispersion (van der Waals) interactions are absent in both, LDA and GGA DFT IMIDAZOLIUM SALTS RESULTS FOR SIMPLE DIMERS M. Dion et al, PRL 92, 246401 (2004) Ar2 and Kr2 Bond lengths: (C6H6)2 5-10% too long Binding energies: 50-100% too large RESULTS FOR SOLIDS Polyethylene Silicon • Reasonable results for molecular systems • Keeps GGA accuracy for covalent systems General purpose functional SOLID FCC ARGON (E. ARTACHO) Some overbinding, and lattice constant still 5% too large … but much better than PBE (massive underbinding and lattice constant 14% too large) THE DOUBLE INTEGRAL PROBLEM (q1,q2,r12) decays as r12-6 Ecnl = (1/2) d3r1 d3r2 (r1) (r2) (q1,q2,r12) can be truncated for r12 > rc ~ 15Å In principle O(N) calculation for systems larger than 2rc ~ 30Å But... with x ~ 0.15Å (Ec=120Ry) there are ~(2106)2 = 41012 integration points Consequently, direct evaluation of vdW functional is much more expensive than LDA/GGA FACTORING (Q1,Q2,R12) G. Román-Pėrez and J. M. Soler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009 ( q1 , q2 , r12 ) p ( q1 ) p ( q2 ) ( r12 ) , Expand in a basis set of functions p(q) 1 E dr1dr2 (r1 ) (r2 ) ( q1 , q2 , r12 ) 2 1 dr1dr2 (r1 ) (r2 ) ( r12 ) 2 , nl c 1 dk ( k ) ( k ) ( k ) 2 , (r ) (r ) p q (r ), (r ) FT INTERPOLATION AS AN EXPANSION Basis functions p(q) interpolate between grid points • Lagrange polynomials: grid given by zeros of orthogonal polynomials • Cubic splines: grid points defined on a logarithmic mesh f ( x) f i pi ( x) f i f ( xi ) i in ( x x j ) if xi n x xi n pi ( x) j j ii n ( xi x j ) 0 otherwise 20 grid points are sufficient Smoothening of required at small q O(NLOGN) ALGORITHM do, for each grid point i find i and i Implemented into SIESTA, but not SIESTA-specific: find qi=q(i ,i ) find i = i p(qi ) i end do Input: Fourier-transform i k Output: Exc , vixc on the grid do, for each reciprocal vector k find uk = (k) k No need for supercells in solids No cutoff radius of interaction end do Inverse-Fourier-transform uk ui do, for each grid point i find i , i , and qi find i , i /i , and i / i find vi end do on a regular grid ALGORITHM EFFICIENCY Atoms CPU time in GGA-XC CPU time in vdW-XC vdW/GGA overhead 2 0.75 s (44%) 7.5 s (89%) 400% MMX polymer 124 1.9 s (2%) 10.6 s (16%) 17% DWCN 168 11.9 s (0.6%) 109 s (5.2%) 4% System Ar2 Message If you can simulate a system with LDA/GGA, you can also simulate it with vdW-DFT IMIDAZOLIUM CRYSTALS: VOLUMES LDA PBE VDW EXP [emim][PF6] 877.4 1088.3 1059.1 1023.9 [bmim][PF6] 513.4 636.6 620.0 605.0 [ddmim][PF6] 1710.9 2258.0 2095.5 2000.6 [mmim][Cl] 607.9 750.5 728.6 687.6 [bmim][Cl]-o 843.8 1039.9 1019.8 961.1 [bmim][Cl]-m 836.3 1051.9 1024.6 966.7 -13.5% +8.5% +5% Error IMIDAZOLIUM CRYSTALS: HEXAFLUOROPHOSPATES emimpf6 bmimpf6 ddmimpf6 IMIDAZOLIUM CRYSTALS: HEXAFLUOROPHOSPATES [bmim][PF6] C5-C5 C1”-C1” C4’-C4’ C2-C4’ C4’-C1” P-P C2-P C1”-P C4’-P Error LDA 4.32 4.24 3.73 4.61 3.64 5.05 3.70 3.88 4.75 7.0% PBE 4.64 4.85 3.99 5.07 3.97 5.69 4.16 4.21 4.95 2.6% VDWE 4.60 4.55 4.05 4.80 4.07 5.64 4.21 4.20 4.91 2.6% VDW 4.54 4.60 4.04 4.80 3.95 5.62 3.90 4.11 4.87 2.0% EXP 4.56 4.52 4.05 5.08 3.86 5.54 3.95 4.29 4.94 [ddmim][PF6] C4-C4 C1”C1” C12C12’ C4’-C4’ C2-C4’ C4’C1” P-P C2-P C1”-P C4’-P C12’-P Error LDA 5.18 4.28 4.83 4.52 4.23 6.00 6.66 3.55 3.95 4.27 4.35 6.0% PBE 5.62 4.24 5.44 5.12 5.10 6.56 6.89 4.00 4.75 4.96 4.78 7.0% VDW 5.47 4.29 5.23 4.90 4.79 6.44 6.80 3.82 4.22 4.68 4.65 3.3% EXP 5.47 4.36 5.01 4.85 4.61 6.25 6.45 4.23 4.01 4.62 4.63 IMIDAZOLIUM CRYSTALS: CHLORIDES [mmim][Cl] C5-C5 C1’-C1’ C2-C1’ C2-Cl C1’-Cl LDA 3.07 3.54 3.37 3.34 3.81 PBE 3.94 3.86 3.63 3.48 3.74 VDW 3.34 3.82 3.56 3.56 3.77 [bmim][Cl]-m C5-C5 C1”-C1” C4’-C4’ C2-C4’ C4’-C1” C2-Cl C1”-Cl C4’-Cl LDA 4.87 4.50 5.17 3.25 3.83 3.28 3.51 3.70 PBE 5.26 5.14 5.72 3.63 3.81 3.38 3.86 3.89 VDW 5.21 4.97 5.42 3.53 3.84 3.46 3.84 3.94 EXP 5.19 4.96 5.33 3.48 3.62 3.39 3.82 3.80 [BMIM][CL]: POLYMORPHISM [bmim][Cl]-Monoclinic [bmim][Cl]-Orthorhombic Energy difference per neutral ion pair E(M-O) [eV] LDA PBE VDW FF(CLaP) -0.05 -0.06 -0.01 0.08 IMIDAZOLIUM CLUSTERS: TRIFLATES [bmim][Tf] [bmim][Tf]2 Geometry Error LDA PBE VDW FF(CLaP) 7.2% 2.3% 1% -- Dimer association energy E [eV] LDA PBE VDW FF(CLaP) -1.411 -1.053 -1.453 -1.457 CONCLUSIONS 1. The non-empirical van der Waals functional of Dion et al. (DRSLL) improves significantly the description of the geometry of imidazolium salts. 2. Volumes are improved respect to PBE, but still overestimated by 5%. 3. Energetics is also improved. It is similar to that of empirical force fields such as CLaP. 4. The cost of calculating the van der Waals correlation correction is 10 times that of PBE. However, in a self-consistent calculation for 100 atoms the overhead is only 20%. THE THEORETICAL LANDSCAPE 100 1000 10000 100000 High Low Size (number of atoms) 1000000 QM/MM Treat relevant part of the system quantum-mechanically, and the rest classically. The problem is how to match the two regions. Easy for non-bonded interactions, more difficult for chemical bonds One can also treat part of the system as a polarizable continuum, or reaction field (RF) QUANTUM MECHANICS IN A LOCAL BASIS TIGHT BINDING TIGHT BINDING TIGHT BINDING MODELS FOR WATER A. T. Paxton and J. Kohanoff, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 044130 (2011) Ground-up philosophy Water molecule 1. Minimal basis. On-site energies to reproduce band structure a) 1s orbital for H: Hs b) 2s & 2p orbitals for O: Os, Op 2. O-H hopping integrals: a) Values at equilibrium length to reproduce HOMO-LUMO gap: tss, tsp b) GSP functional form. Cut-off between first and second neighbours 3. Charge transfer: Hubbard terms fitted to reproduce dipole moment: UO, UH 4. O-H pair potential: GSP form, fitted to reproduce bond length and symmetric stretching force constant 5. Crystal field parameter spp selected to reproduce polarizability TIGHT BINDING MODELS FOR WATER Ground-up philosophy Water dimer 6. O-O hopping integrals: tss, tsp , tpp, tpp GSP form. Cut-off after first neighbours 7. O-O pair potential Various forms (GSP, quadratic) to reproduce binding energy curve 8. Fitting procedure a) By hand (intuitive) b) Genetic algorithm This is the end of the fitting All the rest are predictions ICE-XI • DFT ice sinks in water! • Polarizable model marginal • Point charge model is fine TIGHT-BINDING LIQUID WATER A. T. PAXTON AND J. KOHANOFF, J. CHEM. PHYS. 134, 044130 (2011) TIGHT BINDING MODEL FOR TIO2 Band structure: A. Y. Lozovoi, A. T. Paxton and J. Kohanoff DFT TB Rutile Anatase O on-site energies Os, Op and O-O hopping integrals: tss, tsp , tpp, tpp WATER/TIO2 INTERFACES (SASHA LOZOVOI) Single water adsorption: dissociation WATER/TIO2 INTERFACES (SASHA LOZOVOI) A water layer on TiO2 WATER/TIO2 INTERFACES (SASHA LOZOVOI) Bulk water on TiO2 • 4 TiO2 layers (480 atoms) • 184 water molecules (552 atoms) • 1032 atoms • TBMD 1 ps (one week) WATER/TIO2 INTERFACES (SASHA LOZOVOI) z-density profile of bulk water between TiO2 surfaces PROTON TRANSFER IN WATER Chemical bonds broken and formed ORGANIC MOLECULES (TERENCE SHEPPARD) Benzylacetone in water BENZYLACETONE AT WATER/TIO2 INTERFACE Sasha Lozovoi and Terence Sheppard SUMMARY In developing a force field there are 3 main aspects to consider. In order of relevance: Designing the model Choosing the properties to be reproduced Choosing a methodology to fit those properties Fitting procedures cannot work out their magic if the model is not good enough To become model-independent we need to introduce electrons explicitly: ab initio and DFT methods These are expensive. Simplifications like semi-empirical, tight-binding and QM/MM methods bridge the gap Further simplifications lead to extremely efficient bondorder potentials (BOP)