Author Topic: Qestion about the two probe system optimization  (Read 5072 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline zhangguangping

  • QuantumATK Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Country: cn
  • Reputation: 2
    • View Profile
Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« on: April 16, 2016, 18:18 »
Dear all, I have now learning about the geometric opimzation for a two probe systems. I learn from this tutorial http://docs.quantumwise.com/tutorials/device_relaxation.html . As the tutorial metioned there are two ways to optimize the gometries for two probe systems: BRR method and 1D minimization. Let me simplify the process of the optimization, we suppose that the geometry of the electrodes are in their equilibrium condition so that we do not need to optimize the geometries for the electrode. All we should do is to optimize the geometry stuctures of the electrode surfaces and the adsorbed molecule between in the two electrodes. As I understand, in BRR method, we use a two-slab system to do the optimization, and usually electrode extensions and the screening layers are included to account the interaction between the screening layers and the molecule, the electrode extensions here give a bulk electrode environment for the screening layers. Also, the C lattice vector should be large enough to aviod the interaction of the left electrode with the image of the right electrode when using periodic boundary condition. In this term, the whole system can be optimzed in the C direction as well as the A, B directions. During the optimization, we can make a fully opimizaiton for the molecule and the surface screening layers while make the electrode extensions frozen (one electrode fixed and the other a rigid box that move ridgid in the optimization, which can partially optimize the distance between the two electrode extensions). In this way, we can partially optimze the geometry structure of the core region of the two probe system. However, the final "optimized" geometry would not necessarily the energy lowest configure, but usually colse to that. The optimzation stop when each freedom in the optimzation meets the force criteria, not using the total energy of the target. The method can be effective, and this is what I have always used in the SIESTA code. Meanwhile, the tutorial metioned another opimization method, the so called 1D minimization.
Code
A somewhat more brute-force approach is to explicitly minimize the device total energy wrt. internal coordinates and the central region length, i.e., do the full 2-probe calculations and vary the central region length. This is a 1D minimization problem with relaxation of the atomic positions at each step, so we shall refer to this method as 1DMIN.
As I understand, the 1DMIN method will do a optimization of the two probe system using an energy minization with respect to the internal coordinates and the central region length. In this case, the distance between the two electrode (or lattice vector C) are sampled for some values around the one given as the inital. For each electrode distance( or lattice vector C), the centrol region will be fully opimized with the electrode extensions fixed. One can get the energy lowest configure (also the  intermediate optimized configuration) for this electrode distance, and record its energy with respect to this electrode distance. Do this opimization for all the sampled electrode distance, we can plot the energy of the system wit respect to the electrode distance. Then we can  extrapolate the optimal electrode distance (lattice vector C). At last, we do the gometry optimzation under the optimal electrode distance, and get the optimzed geometry for the two probe system. This can be called a globle optimization. Is my understanding right, please correct it if there is any misundertanding? Yet, I have qestions about the 1DMIN method. What is the total energy for?  Is it for the total two-probe system: Left electrode+Central region+Righ electrode? During this optimzation, both the electrodes and electrode extensions will be moved rigid along with the optimzaiton of the C lattice vector? Can the atoms in the screening layers and molecule suffer constrains set by the user? In this case, it is not a full optimization, the user can set some constrains to the core region of the system, eg. user can fix the anchor atoms of the molecule to the hollow sites of the surface and can set the outmost of the screening layers to move rigid together with the electrode extensions, etc? With best regards, Guangping
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 11:08 by zhangguangping »

Offline zhangguangping

  • QuantumATK Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Country: cn
  • Reputation: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2016, 08:11 »
Dear all,

In addition, I find one can not use ATK-Classical method to do a geometric relaxation for two probe systems if there are molecules and metal electrodes.

How to solve this problem? Can we define the potentials for different kinds of atoms, respectively? If not, we can only use ATK-SE to speed up the geometry optimization?

With best regards,

/Guangping

Offline zhangguangping

  • QuantumATK Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Country: cn
  • Reputation: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2016, 12:05 »
Dear Umberto Martinez,

You mentioned that one does not need the dipole correction in the middle of the vacuum region which can  be applied in VASP for a molecule adsorbed metal surface in the thread http://quantumwise.com/forum/index.php?topic=2666.0.

In ATK, if one use a vacum large enough, then the dipole correction can be ignored? If we use ghost atoms at the metal surface, do the ghost atoms be chosen to move or fix during the geometry optimization? As far as know, the use of ghost atoms will be problmatic in the geomtry optization.

With best regards,

/Guangping

Offline zhangguangping

  • QuantumATK Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Country: cn
  • Reputation: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2016, 14:28 »
Dear all,

Also, I find the ATK-Classical gives a wrong geometry results. For a molecule that is optimzed by ATK-DFT, the ATK-Classical gives a dissociation molecule structure. So, use the ATK-Classical with care.

With best regards,

/Guangping

Offline Umberto Martinez

  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2016, 08:57 »
Quote
You mentioned that one does not need the dipole correction in the middle of the vacuum region which can  be applied in VASP for a molecule adsorbed metal surface in the thread http://quantumwise.com/forum/index.php?topic=2666.0.

In ATK, if one use a vacum large enough, then the dipole correction can be ignored? If we use ghost atoms at the metal surface, do the ghost atoms be chosen to move or fix during the geometry optimization? As far as know, the use of ghost atoms will be problmatic in the geomtry optization.

the dipole correction which you can add in VASP is not implemented in ATK. Instead, in ATK it is possible to specify different boundary conditions for the two directions normal to the surface.
This is very well explained in out two related tutorials:
http://docs.quantumwise.com/tutorials/work_function_ag_100.html
http://docs.quantumwise.com/tutorials/work_function_tuning.html

I suggest to constrain the ghost atoms during a geometry optimization.



Offline Umberto Martinez

  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 26
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2016, 08:59 »
Quote
Also, I find the ATK-Classical gives a wrong geometry results. For a molecule that is optimzed by ATK-DFT, the ATK-Classical gives a dissociation molecule structure. So, use the ATK-Classical with care.

Absolutely! particular care has to be taken when choosing the classical potential. Check the reference paper carefully to see if your system is compatible with the ones used to test and generate the potential.

Offline Daniele Stradi

  • Supreme QuantumATK Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 286
  • Country: dk
  • Reputation: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2016, 09:11 »
Dear Zhuangping,

- Is my understanding right, please correct it if there is any misundertanding?
You are right about the differences between the BRR and 1DMIN methods.  Regarding the BRR method, notice that in ATK you can treat those region that you don't need to optimize as rigid bodies. When you set a part of the system as rigid body, you constrain only its interatomic angles and distances, but not its center of mass, which is still free to move.

- Yet, I have qestions about the 1DMIN method. What is the total energy for?
It is the energy of the central systems. Please read section: http://www.quantumwise.com/documents/manuals/latest/ReferenceManual/index.html/chap.negf.html#sect1.negf.totalEnergy

- In ATK, if one use a vacum large enough, then the dipole correction can be ignored?
In principle you are correct, but consider that a better choice is to use the multigrid solver implemented in ATK, with which you can use different boundary conditions. Therefore you don't have to care about the dipole.
See for example: http://docs.quantumwise.com/tutorials/geometry_optimization.html

- If we use ghost atoms at the metal surface, do the ghost atoms be chosen to move or fix during the geometry optimization?
No the ghost atoms are fixed.

- In addition, I find one can not use ATK-Classical method to do a geometric relaxation for two probe systems if there are molecules and metal electrodes. How to solve this problem? Can we define the potentials for different kinds of atoms, respectively? If not, we can only use ATK-SE to speed up the geometry optimization?

This is probably because there is no set of potentials available for the atoms in your system. However, you can use ATK-SE for the geometry optmization. See for example:
http://docs.quantumwise.com/tutorials/neb_dftb.html?highlight=neb

- Also, I find the ATK-Classical gives a wrong geometry results. For a molecule that is optimzed by ATK-DFT, the ATK-Classical gives a dissociation molecule structure. So, use the ATK-Classical with care.

I think a more general statement would be: "use classical potentials with care!" :)

Let me know if I left something out or unclear :)

Regards,
Daniele.



Offline zhangguangping

  • QuantumATK Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 193
  • Country: cn
  • Reputation: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Qestion about the two probe system optimization
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2016, 11:23 »
Dear Umberto and Daniele,

So much thanks for your kind reply. They are of great help in clear my puzzles.

I have already read the total energy and forces in the manual
http://www.quantumwise.com/documents/manuals/latest/ReferenceManual/index.html/chap.negf.html#sect1.negf.totalEnergy

According to what the manual says, one can calcualtion the force under bias and do the geometry optimzation under a bias voltage for a two probe system?

How to consider the force from the current on atom?

With best regards,

Guangping