Skip to content
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

Fix: bug in charge extrapolation #5007

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 28, 2024
Merged

Conversation

YuLiu98
Copy link
Collaborator

@YuLiu98 YuLiu98 commented Aug 27, 2024

Linked Issue

Fix #5006

@mohanchen mohanchen added the Bugs Bugs that only solvable with sufficient knowledge of DFT label Aug 28, 2024
@mohanchen mohanchen merged commit 93badfa into deepmodeling:develop Aug 28, 2024
14 checks passed
@YuLiu98 YuLiu98 deleted the hotfix branch August 28, 2024 10:55
@kirk0830
Copy link
Collaborator

@YuLiu98 next could we turn to use binary file instead of Gaussian cube to do chg_extrap? I think the latter will be precision-loss-free and will have a slight improvement on extrapolation efficiency. But we two have seen there is small problem with ultrasoft pseudopotential...

@YuLiu98
Copy link
Collaborator Author

YuLiu98 commented Aug 30, 2024

@YuLiu98 next could we turn to use binary file instead of Gaussian cube to do chg_extrap? I think the latter will be precision-loss-free and will have a slight improvement on extrapolation efficiency. But we two have seen there is small problem with ultrasoft pseudopotential...

Currently, the charge density of the last three steps is saved in memory instead of writing and reading cube files.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bugs Bugs that only solvable with sufficient knowledge of DFT
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Bug: BFGS breakdown for Fe5C2(510) slab system due to weird magmom-flip
3 participants