Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Topics Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
  • nomad-FAIR nomad-FAIR
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributor statistics
    • Graph
    • Compare revisions
  • Issues 328
    • Issues 328
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 46
    • Merge requests 46
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Artifacts
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Environments
    • Releases
  • Packages and registries
    • Packages and registries
    • Package Registry
    • Container Registry
    • Terraform modules
    • Model experiments
  • Monitor
    • Monitor
    • Incidents
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • nomad-labnomad-lab
  • nomad-FAIRnomad-FAIR
  • Issues
  • #1210

Missing bravais lattice symmetries and tolerance factor problem

This is a two sided problem of the high-symmetry points method for the band structure and the Brillouin zone. As an example of what I mean, please check out the following picture:

This is done for Si2. As you can see, the high-symmetry points cannot be recognize.

After digging up a bit, I saw a couple of problems in the band_structure.py normalizer. Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong or I overlooked something:

  1. Some symmetries are not addressed in BandStructureNormalizer:get_special_points method: there should be 14 Bravais lattices (see e.g. Wikipedia or the paper by Setyawana and Curtarolo) and there are only 6 defined for the high-symmetry points. As said in the method: "This is copied from the VASP parser", so it essentially fails for all the other electronic codes I checked.
  2. I think the tolerance factor should be relaxed to 0.01 or 0.001 Å (right now it is 0.0001 Å, which might be a bit restrictive when capturing the correct symmetry).

The point 2. is easy to implement. The point 1. is much more involved. @mscheidg @lucamghi @ndaelman : wouldn't be better to simply comment out these assertions and come up with a more generalized check later on? As I see it, having the high-symmetry points well captured is more important right now that sanity checks on the fine details of the structure.

Let me know what you think, please.


In the example above for Si2, the bravais_lattice is 'cF' which is addressed by the normalizer, but the assertions are failing because the three cubic directions difer by 4 ⋅ 10-4 (which is more than 0.0001, of course).

Edited Dec 02, 2022 by Jose Pizarro
Assignee
Assign to
Time tracking