First of all, sorry for the very late reply. Let me answer point by
1. By way of general advice, I suggest to start with a coarse r-mesh
(e.g. 10×10×10 points) and a larger plot region than you think you
to figure out the correct plotting window. You said you checked this,
but it can really be tricky, what with different settings both in
Wannier90 (translate_home_cell) and wplot2xsf (-noshift). Once you
that, you can scale up the precision.
I've double checked this and I'm pretty sure that I'm plotting the right
region. I've been using 8x8x8,10x10x10 and 12x12x12 k-meshes to perform
all my tests.
2. All parts of the calculation (mainly, case.chk and case.vector) have
to match. If, for some reason, you ran another lapw1 after wannier90,
wplot will not work. Therefore, it sometimes helps simply to repeat
whole procedure (lapw1 && w2w && wannier90 && wplot), just to be sure
that there is no inconsistency.
I've repeated the procedure several times from scratch and every time I
get the same result.
3. Did you check if the real-space representation of the WF is real
(i.e., case.psink should be 0 or ±π up to numerical precision)?
the xsf format does not accomodate complex numbers, wplot2xsf by
writes |w(r)|² sgn Re w(r). This could lead to “strange” isosurfaces
there is a phase.
When I open the *psink files I see something like this (this is only the
head of the file)
3D NP abs(X) ang(X1,X) ang(X2,X)
15 7.2641070 90.00000
15 26.2974260 90.00000 90.00000
6.18314155E-05 3.08656339E-03 2.66355611E-06 2.69500392E-08
5.04621879E-08 1.37216569E-06 8.48431916E-05 2.12029520E-04
2.98617091E-08 1.29545184E-09 9.81248903E-08 1.85362152E-04
5.62558916E-04 4.05611462E-01 1.39474115E-03 2.53339043E-06
1.00373845E-06 2.69807803E-04 6.89898991E-01 1.00181080E-04
9.45113631E-06 1.26330365E-07 1.64959367E-08 2.47125345E-06
9.35951297E-02 2.99484270E-04 1.98104817E-06 3.63551589E-08
1.41456246E-08 4.69129054E-07 2.54101577E-04 1.58105216E-01
I guess that the problem may be here since I cannot see 0, +-Pi or
multiples of Pi anywhere. However, as I told you, all the hopping
integrals in the real-space Hamiltonian are real, which for me indicates
that the calculation with Wannier90 has converged to the
Maximally-Localized Wannier Functions. I'm asuming that having real
Wannier functions implies having real hoppings, but not the opposite. Do
you have any clue on how could I improve/modify this? I've tried with
"rephase case" but it does not work, I get an error of the type
read-in initial values for Wannier functions...
forrtl: No such file or directory
forrtl: severe (29): file not found, unit 15, file "my_path"/t1/t1_
Image PC Routine Line
rephase 00000000004A1F6E Unknown Unknown
rephase 00000000004A0A06 Unknown Unknown
rephase 0000000000459B42 Unknown Unknown
rephase 00000000004155FC Unknown Unknown
rephase 0000000000414B1C Unknown Unknown
rephase 00000000004284D8 Unknown Unknown
rephase 000000000040448F MAIN__ 136
rephase 000000000040333C Unknown Unknown
libc.so.6 00007FC01202BEAD Unknown Unknown
rephase 0000000000403219 Unknown Unknown
4. If the above does not help and you just want your plots, it could be
an option to simply use the ones from Quantum Espresso. In my view,
real-space WFs are a qualitative rather than a quantitative tool
you are very careful …), therefore it could be okay to use the QE
real-space WFs as a visualization for your Wien2k WFs, as long as H(R)
and the band structure are “the same”. Obviously, this depends on what
you want to do with them.
Both the H(R) and the bandstructures are the same but I need the shape
of the Wannier orbitals from Wien2k, which is meant to coincide with the
shape of the Wannier orbitals from Quantum Espresso in the outer part,
but not necessarily in the inner region close to the nucleus since one
is an all-electron code and the other one is a pseudopotential one.
5. On the other hand, if you want to get it right with Wien2k (and
possibly help me find a bug), the next thing I would try is a different
version of wplot (I am assuming that you tried the one included in
Wien2k 14.2). This is one part of the package that I changed quite a
lot recently and invariably, bugs creep in. You could either try the
newest version from GitHub (caveat: the format of case.inwplot changed)
where some of those bugs are fixed; or the “old” one (0.97, available
which has a different set of bugs.
I've been using the 14.1 version, not 14.2. Should I change to 14.2 or
is it OK with 14.1?
6. Relatedly, what crystal structure do you have? Wien2Wannier has had
some problems with more “difficult” lattice types in the past.
I'm working with the 122 family of the iron-based superconductors.
Thank you very much for your advice.
Pablo Villar Arribi
PhD student at ESRF
Wien mailing list
SEARCH the MAILING-LIST at: