4.1 Article

Consistent LDA' plus DMFT-an unambiguous way to avoid double counting problem: NiO test

期刊

JETP LETTERS
卷 95, 期 11, 页码 581-585

出版社

MAIK NAUKA/INTERPERIODICA/SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1134/S0021364012110070

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [11-02-00147]
  2. Russian Academy of Sciences [12-P-2-1002]
  3. Division of Physical Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences [012-T-2-1001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a consistent way of treating a double counting problem unavoidably arising within the LDA + DMFT combined approach to realistic calculations of electronic structure of strongly correlated systems. The main obstacle here is the absence of systematic (e.g., diagrammatic) way to express LDA (local density approximation) contribution to exchange correlation energy appearing in the density functional theory. It is not clear then, which part of interaction entering DMFT (dynamical mean-field theory) is already taken into account through LDA calculations. Because of that, up to now there is no accepted unique expression for the double counting correction in LDA + DMFT. To avoid this problem we propose here the consistent LDA' + DMFT approach, where LDA exchange correlation contribution is explicitly excluded for correlated states (bands) during self-consistent band structure calculations. What is left out of Coulomb interaction for those strongly correlated states (bands) is its non-local part, which is not included in DMFT, and the local Hartreelike contribution. Then the double counting correction is uniquely reduced to the local Hartree contribution. Correlations for strongly correlated states are then directly accounted for via the standard DMFT. We further test the consistent LDA' + DMFT scheme and compare it with conventional LDA + DMFT calculating the electronic structure of NiO. Opposite to the conventional LDA + DMFT our consistent LDA' + DMFT approach unambiguously produces the insulating band structure in agreement with experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据