Underestimation of hyperfine constant

Questions will be moved to this forum when we consider them out of scope for support from our side: for instance when we do not have the necessary expertise to come up with an answer.
Another user still might, though!

Moderators: Global Moderator, Moderator

Post Reply
Message
Author
hongyang_ma
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:54 am

Underestimation of hyperfine constant

#1 Post by hongyang_ma » Mon Mar 21, 2022 6:29 am

Hi,

I'm a newbie in using VASP. I would like to use VASP to calculate the isotropic hyperfine constant of P doped Si by using the keyword "LHYPERFINE". I successfully got the results, however, the calculated hyperfine value is much smaller than the experimental value (76 MHz vs. 117 MHz). I'm wondering what is the reason that causes this underestimation? Is this due to the psedupotential which ignore the core electron contribution? Are there any possible ways to improve the results?

The input files I used and OUTCAR are attached
Files.rar
. Please have a look. Thanks you for your help.

Best Regards,
Hongyang
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

marie-therese.huebsch
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:01 am

Re: Underestimation of hyperfine constant

#2 Post by marie-therese.huebsch » Wed Mar 23, 2022 8:10 am

Hi Hongyang,

Thank you for bringing up this topic. Perhaps someone else has experience with this calculation and can help.

From what I gathered, the result of LHYPERFINE is very sensitive to the PAW dataset you are using. Therefore, you may try if the GW POTCAR yields different results. A computationally more expensive route could be to make use of hybrid functionals. The advantage of hybrid functionals is that you can probably set the amount of Fock exchange just right to reproduce the experimental value. From a critical standpoint that would not be fully ab initio then, because you selected a parameter to fit the experiment. Besides these suggestions, you could also benchmark against an all-electron code like Wien2k, but I don't know if they provide the analogous output for the hyperfine constant.

Best regards,
Marie-Therese

hongyang_ma
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:54 am

Re: Underestimation of hyperfine constant

#3 Post by hongyang_ma » Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:50 am

Hi Marie,

Thanks for you reply. I will give it a try.

Best,
Hongyang

marie-therese.huebsch
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:01 am

Re: Underestimation of hyperfine constant

#4 Post by marie-therese.huebsch » Thu Jan 18, 2024 2:14 pm

Hi Hongyang,

May I ask what you concluded after your tests?

Marie-Therese

Post Reply