-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Make sure that supercell_matrices of single-atom-displaced and rattled supercells are the same per default #258
Changes from 1 commit
3022c3b
a01c5a6
f3d35a0
1b7e6c0
3754c8c
d76dc84
4dc423e
c02bfc3
1b95862
8d0c3a8
0337f46
e51db69
eacd697
c89312c
a508a53
b8ae70c
10ac1e5
bc5ca78
cb4c995
9f02c13
d60d9fc
75f2668
6da2b0f
14a9eb5
776384d
6b3ceb2
125eec1
a0f3d83
f35ef28
bbae8f5
bc7dec9
5b35adf
a84458d
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -2,15 +2,16 @@ | |
"GAP": { | ||
"general": { | ||
"at_file": "train.extxyz", | ||
"default_sigma": "{0.0001 0.05 0.05 0}", | ||
"default_sigma": "{0.0001 0.1 0.05 0}", | ||
"energy_parameter_name": "REF_energy", | ||
"force_parameter_name": "REF_forces", | ||
"virial_parameter_name": "REF_virial", | ||
"sparse_jitter": 1.0e-8, | ||
"do_copy_at_file": "F", | ||
"openmp_chunk_size": 10000, | ||
"gp_file": "gap_file.xml", | ||
"two_body": true, | ||
"e0_offset": 2.0, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why do we force e0_offset to equal 2 instead of using the default value of 0? This setting is not common in GAP fitting. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Because I put the Si settings from the JCP2020 paper. But I can also set it to 0 if you think that this is better. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yes, please set it to 0. The program will automatically calculate this value, or the user can customize it. A value of 2 might be a specific setting for Si. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok! |
||
"two_body": false, | ||
"three_body": false, | ||
"soap": true | ||
}, | ||
|
@@ -40,15 +41,15 @@ | |
}, | ||
"soap": { | ||
"add_species": "T", | ||
"l_max": 10, | ||
"n_max": 12, | ||
"l_max": 12, | ||
"n_max": 10, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I would increase n_max before increasing l_max. Or we can stick to n_max=l_max=10. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Here, I also use Si settings from JCP2020 paper. But I can doublecheck that I didn't mix it up. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The default values here, including those mentioned earlier, are intended to be applicable to most systems. Increasing l_max would greatly impact computational efficiency. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ok, then I'll change it back too. |
||
"atom_sigma": 0.5, | ||
"zeta": 4, | ||
"cutoff": 5.0, | ||
"cutoff_transition_width": 0.5, | ||
"cutoff_transition_width": 1.0, | ||
"central_weight": 1.0, | ||
"n_sparse": 6000, | ||
"delta": 0.50, | ||
"delta": 1.00, | ||
"f0": 0.0, | ||
"covariance_type": "dot_product", | ||
"sparse_method": "cur_points" | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For accurate phonon calculations, achieving high precision in force evaluations is crucial. While I understand that specific settings have been made for each structure, I believe a default force sigma of 0.05 would be more appropriate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As before, from the Si JCP2020 paper settings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still recommend to use
0.05
.0.1
still seems too large. For most phonon calculations, when I don't use single-atom rattling, I prefer not to enable the automatic sigma setting. In this case, I can use the default value of 0.05 for fitting.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, then I will change this back! :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thank you