Dear Professor Yates,

Thank you so much for your explanations. I apologize for my late response. 
There was indeed a discrepancy between the DFT groundstate used to compute the 
WF and the one used to compute the band structure. After using the same 
groundstate for both of the calculations, my results improved noticeably. I 
have included the latest band structures (NC17-modified.png and 
NC5-modified.png) in the same folder:
As can be seen, DFT and WF bands completely match for the set of seventeen WF 
as expected (NC17-modified.png). However, WF bands deviate from that of DFT 
around the Fermi energy for the set of five WF (NC5-modified.png). Considering 
I investigated varying an intersection of parameters as mentioned in my 
previous email, I was wondering if there is a way to improve my results even 
further, since for my future calculations I need the case with five WF to be 

I appreciate your help a lot.

Best Regards,
Mohaddeseh Kazemi-Moridani
Department of Physics,
Université de Montréal

On Apr 14, 2022, at 1:31 PM, Jonathan Yates 


I’ve had a quick look at your files. I can’t say for sure what is wrong with 
your calculation. But let me make an observation that might help.

Wannier band structures are an interpolation. i.e. when there is no 
disentanglement (an isolated manifold of bands) at any kpoint that is part of 
the mesh used to construct the WF, the Wannier interpolated eigenvalues will 
agree exactly with the original DFT calculation.
The Gamma point should always be part of the mesh used to construct the WF, so 
the band-structures at Gamma should match.

For the set of 17 WF: Am I right that the DFT bands form an isolated manifold, 
so no disentanglement is need? If that is true the red and black bands should 
match at Gamma. They clearly don’t. You need to understand this point before 
moving on to the set of 5 WF.

[the more I look at NCP17.png I have the feeling that there might be nothing 
“wrong” with your WF, but that the DFT groundstate used to compute the WF and 
that used to compute the bands are different in someway e.g. xc functional - 
just a wild guess..]


On 14 Apr 2022, at 15:48, Azin Kazemi Moridani 

Dear All,

I am trying to generate a Wannier90 tight-binding model for Sr2FeO4 using 
Wannier90 interfaced with ABINIT
. The
of the bands produced by Wannier90 and ABINIT agree with one another, but there 
are some discrepancies almost everywhere, especially
around the Fermi energy. I have tried to investigate the effect of varying 
different parameters, such as : size of the KPOINT mesh, number of iterations, 
energy window (with and without a frozen window, excluding bands,..), and the 
set of projections (either
only on Iron d-orbitals, or on Iron d-orbitals plus Oxygen p-orbitals). In the 
disentangled case of Iron d-orbitals plus Oxygen p-orbitals, the mapping is 
expected to be exactly on top of the DFT band structure. I performed the 
calculations with two


Norm-Conserving (NC) and
Projector-Augmented Wave (PAW)

In all the cases, convergence is

but the disagreement persists.

I would appreciate it a lot if anyone could help me improve
my results. The
“<>" and "wannier90.wout”

alongside the band structures in the case of

five Iron d-orbitals

(NC5.PNG) and
Iron d-orbitals plus

twelve (4 * 3) Oxygen p-orbitals (NC17.PNG) can be found here:;;sdata=Do%2BvZnEhMRqTeavIeXm8EnNIQT8HdpIVIYgdY%2FlKya0%3D&amp;reserved=0

Thank you so much in advance.

Best Regards,
Mohaddeseh Kazemi-Moridani
Department of Physics
Université de Montréal

Wannier mailing list<>;;sdata=XHrdYE%2FRW%2ByHybTfgNUSoqpj96Wt6dJV0GbShESvexE%3D&amp;reserved=0

Wannier mailing list<>;;sdata=XHrdYE%2FRW%2ByHybTfgNUSoqpj96Wt6dJV0GbShESvexE%3D&amp;reserved=0

Wannier mailing list

Reply via email to