Hello Daniel, I am currently currently working on an AFM system as well and was having exactly the same problems you described. I am not sure, but changing the pseudopotentials seem to have solved my problems. Not sure if there is something wrong with those paw pseudopotential or if there are extra setting that should go along with those potentials. Maybe you can try the ONCVPSP pseudopotentials to see if you get better results.
Regards, David G. Brookhaven National Laboratory > On Feb 9, 2020, at 9:10 AM, Daniel Kaplan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello All! > > I'm trying to calculate a system with a known AFM ground state. In the > attached example, I provide the input data I'm using for CuMnAs -- a > tetragonal anti-ferromagnet. > I've started on this project by first executing the examples, and > particularly FeO. > I tested this example against all sorts of variations: different functionals, > with/without U, and so on. Without any further tweaking, the system always > converged to the AFM ground-state, provided the initial moments were also > oriented in the AFM configuration. > > Which makes my failure in this (CuMnAs) system even more puzzling. Firstly, > without any constraints, the system does not converge to an AFM state. > 1. Using 'constrained_magnetization=total' leads to completely wrong results, > with a divergent "Magnetic field". > 2. A more-or-less sensible result can be obtained with > 'constrained_magnetization='atomic' (as shown), however, the resultant > magnetization is not altogether anti-ferromagnetic. Note that the system is > in general endowed with PT-symmetry. The resultant eigenvalues DO NOT show > this and you can also see the disparity in the magnetic moments of the Mn > atoms, as well as eigenvalue difference of more than 1meV for some bands and > k-points. > 3. This behavior is weakly dependent on lambda. I tried fiddling around with > the values. A certain increase worsens the results, then seems to improve it, > only to worsen again. What is a reason value for the constraint, in your > estimation? I take it to be 5% of the unperturbed energy (i.e., energy > without the constraint). > 4. Testing the exact same system on different software (VASP, in this case), > converged very well to the AFM state (i.e., PT symmetry was recovered to less > than 1meV). > > What am I doing wrong, therefore? > I would appreciate any advice. > Yours thankful, > Daniel Kaplan > Dept. of Condensed Matter Physics > Weizmann Institute of Science > <scf.in> > <scf.out> > _______________________________________________ > Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso) > users mailing list [email protected] > https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Quantum ESPRESSO is supported by MaX (www.max-centre.eu/quantum-espresso) users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quantum-espresso.org/mailman/listinfo/users
