Can I compare DFT calculations with different grids?How should I go about picking a functional for DFT calculations?Are there any full worked examples of DFT calculations?DFT Functional Selection CriteriaThere are no wavefunctions in DFTHybrid functional calculations using different approachWhy are correlation consistent basis sets used with DFT calculations?DFT: Can the calculated enthalpy of two systems that aren't isoelectronic be compared?Understanding the basics of DFTDFT calculation of solids with different periodsReference states for molecular orbital energies in DFT calculations

Does "boire un jus" tend to mean "coffee" or "juice of fruit"?

Having to constantly redo everything because I don't know how to do it

Is leaving out prefixes like "rauf", "rüber", "rein" when describing movement considered a big mistake in spoken German?

Is there a list of all of the cases in the Talmud where תיקו ("Teiku") is said?

How to track mail undetectably?

English idiomatic equivalents of 能骗就骗 (if you can cheat, then cheat)

Hard for me to understand one tip written in "The as-if rule" of cppreference

How do I tell my girlfriend she's been buying me books by the wrong author for the last nine months?

Delete all files from a folder using a bat that match a certain pattern in Windows 10

What does 5d4 x 10 gp mean?

Installed software from source, how to say yum not to install it from package?

Rear derailleur got caught in the spokes, what could be a root cause

How can leaves knock out a dragon-like creature?

Tricolour nonogram

Why was Pan Am Flight 103 flying over Lockerbie?

Why are examinees often not allowed to leave during the start and end of an exam?

What are the children of two Muggle-borns called?

Correct use of the the idiom 'Гнать/Катить бочку'

Why didn't Caesar move against Sextus Pompey immediately after Munda?

Do home values typically rise and fall consistently across different price ranges?

Subset of knight's move in chess.

Can dual citizens open crypto exchange accounts where U.S. citizens are prohibited?

Fully submerged water bath for stove top baking?

Calculus, water poured into a cone: Why is the derivative non-linear?



Can I compare DFT calculations with different grids?


How should I go about picking a functional for DFT calculations?Are there any full worked examples of DFT calculations?DFT Functional Selection CriteriaThere are no wavefunctions in DFTHybrid functional calculations using different approachWhy are correlation consistent basis sets used with DFT calculations?DFT: Can the calculated enthalpy of two systems that aren't isoelectronic be compared?Understanding the basics of DFTDFT calculation of solids with different periodsReference states for molecular orbital energies in DFT calculations













4












$begingroup$


When doing DFT calculations, some integrations are commonly done numerically on grids. [In fact, more than a single grid may be used at the same time for different integrals, e.g. approximations such as the resolution of identity (RIJCOSX, RIJK, etc., see e.g. J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9136 (2003)) use grid schemes too (I believe some programs call this approximation density fitting).]



There's the downside that those grid schemes introduce a source of error. In fact, I find that only by increasing the quality of the grid I can remove some imaginary frequencies. Can I rigorously compare energy values among calculations that used slightly different grid schemes?



I think yes and I reasoned as follows. Since I'm interested in energy differences, let's imagine two structures with true energies $E^*_1$ and $E^*_2$. Both energies are approximated by the calculated energies $E_i = E^*_i + epsilon_i$, where $epsilon_i$ is the error introduced by calculations (including grids, etc.). Now the energy difference $Delta E^* = E^*_2 - E^*_1$ is approximated by $Delta E = E_2 - E_1 = Delta E^* + Delta epsilon$, where $Delta epsilon = epsilon_2 - epsilon_1$. Since grid schemes introduce errors that are smaller than other sources of error (e.g. implicit solvation), everything should be fine as long as $Delta epsilon$ is acceptably small for the particular application at hand.



Does this seem reasonable? If not, what's wrong with the above?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    When doing DFT calculations, some integrations are commonly done numerically on grids. [In fact, more than a single grid may be used at the same time for different integrals, e.g. approximations such as the resolution of identity (RIJCOSX, RIJK, etc., see e.g. J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9136 (2003)) use grid schemes too (I believe some programs call this approximation density fitting).]



    There's the downside that those grid schemes introduce a source of error. In fact, I find that only by increasing the quality of the grid I can remove some imaginary frequencies. Can I rigorously compare energy values among calculations that used slightly different grid schemes?



    I think yes and I reasoned as follows. Since I'm interested in energy differences, let's imagine two structures with true energies $E^*_1$ and $E^*_2$. Both energies are approximated by the calculated energies $E_i = E^*_i + epsilon_i$, where $epsilon_i$ is the error introduced by calculations (including grids, etc.). Now the energy difference $Delta E^* = E^*_2 - E^*_1$ is approximated by $Delta E = E_2 - E_1 = Delta E^* + Delta epsilon$, where $Delta epsilon = epsilon_2 - epsilon_1$. Since grid schemes introduce errors that are smaller than other sources of error (e.g. implicit solvation), everything should be fine as long as $Delta epsilon$ is acceptably small for the particular application at hand.



    Does this seem reasonable? If not, what's wrong with the above?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      When doing DFT calculations, some integrations are commonly done numerically on grids. [In fact, more than a single grid may be used at the same time for different integrals, e.g. approximations such as the resolution of identity (RIJCOSX, RIJK, etc., see e.g. J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9136 (2003)) use grid schemes too (I believe some programs call this approximation density fitting).]



      There's the downside that those grid schemes introduce a source of error. In fact, I find that only by increasing the quality of the grid I can remove some imaginary frequencies. Can I rigorously compare energy values among calculations that used slightly different grid schemes?



      I think yes and I reasoned as follows. Since I'm interested in energy differences, let's imagine two structures with true energies $E^*_1$ and $E^*_2$. Both energies are approximated by the calculated energies $E_i = E^*_i + epsilon_i$, where $epsilon_i$ is the error introduced by calculations (including grids, etc.). Now the energy difference $Delta E^* = E^*_2 - E^*_1$ is approximated by $Delta E = E_2 - E_1 = Delta E^* + Delta epsilon$, where $Delta epsilon = epsilon_2 - epsilon_1$. Since grid schemes introduce errors that are smaller than other sources of error (e.g. implicit solvation), everything should be fine as long as $Delta epsilon$ is acceptably small for the particular application at hand.



      Does this seem reasonable? If not, what's wrong with the above?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      When doing DFT calculations, some integrations are commonly done numerically on grids. [In fact, more than a single grid may be used at the same time for different integrals, e.g. approximations such as the resolution of identity (RIJCOSX, RIJK, etc., see e.g. J. Chem. Phys. 118, 9136 (2003)) use grid schemes too (I believe some programs call this approximation density fitting).]



      There's the downside that those grid schemes introduce a source of error. In fact, I find that only by increasing the quality of the grid I can remove some imaginary frequencies. Can I rigorously compare energy values among calculations that used slightly different grid schemes?



      I think yes and I reasoned as follows. Since I'm interested in energy differences, let's imagine two structures with true energies $E^*_1$ and $E^*_2$. Both energies are approximated by the calculated energies $E_i = E^*_i + epsilon_i$, where $epsilon_i$ is the error introduced by calculations (including grids, etc.). Now the energy difference $Delta E^* = E^*_2 - E^*_1$ is approximated by $Delta E = E_2 - E_1 = Delta E^* + Delta epsilon$, where $Delta epsilon = epsilon_2 - epsilon_1$. Since grid schemes introduce errors that are smaller than other sources of error (e.g. implicit solvation), everything should be fine as long as $Delta epsilon$ is acceptably small for the particular application at hand.



      Does this seem reasonable? If not, what's wrong with the above?







      computational-chemistry energy density-functional-theory






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jun 22 at 15:13







      Felipe S. S. Schneider

















      asked Jun 21 at 13:14









      Felipe S. S. SchneiderFelipe S. S. Schneider

      2,0632 gold badges14 silver badges32 bronze badges




      2,0632 gold badges14 silver badges32 bronze badges




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          Yes, your error analysis is valid for energy differences. However, I believe it is also valid for the absolute error $epsilon_i$ of any calculated quantity, not just the error $Deltaepsilon$ of an energy difference.



          In any numerical computation, the key thing for situations like this is to ensure that these "structural" sources of error have been reduced to a magnitude that don't affect your results. In this case, this is achieved when you reach a grid quality $Q$ where the numerical results no longer change when you further increase to $Q+delta Q$.



          To be clear: in this case elimination of the imaginary frequencies is not a good criterion for a sufficiently large $Q$. The proper stopping point for refinement of $Q$ is when the results no longer change appreciably.



          Note that, as you allude to implicitly in the question, this situation is different than the one of trying to compare, e.g., absolute energies from computations run with different methods or at different levels of theory. In this case, there are fundamental/theoretical reasons why those comparisons cannot be meaningfully made.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$















            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "431"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117161%2fcan-i-compare-dft-calculations-with-different-grids%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            7












            $begingroup$

            Yes, your error analysis is valid for energy differences. However, I believe it is also valid for the absolute error $epsilon_i$ of any calculated quantity, not just the error $Deltaepsilon$ of an energy difference.



            In any numerical computation, the key thing for situations like this is to ensure that these "structural" sources of error have been reduced to a magnitude that don't affect your results. In this case, this is achieved when you reach a grid quality $Q$ where the numerical results no longer change when you further increase to $Q+delta Q$.



            To be clear: in this case elimination of the imaginary frequencies is not a good criterion for a sufficiently large $Q$. The proper stopping point for refinement of $Q$ is when the results no longer change appreciably.



            Note that, as you allude to implicitly in the question, this situation is different than the one of trying to compare, e.g., absolute energies from computations run with different methods or at different levels of theory. In this case, there are fundamental/theoretical reasons why those comparisons cannot be meaningfully made.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              7












              $begingroup$

              Yes, your error analysis is valid for energy differences. However, I believe it is also valid for the absolute error $epsilon_i$ of any calculated quantity, not just the error $Deltaepsilon$ of an energy difference.



              In any numerical computation, the key thing for situations like this is to ensure that these "structural" sources of error have been reduced to a magnitude that don't affect your results. In this case, this is achieved when you reach a grid quality $Q$ where the numerical results no longer change when you further increase to $Q+delta Q$.



              To be clear: in this case elimination of the imaginary frequencies is not a good criterion for a sufficiently large $Q$. The proper stopping point for refinement of $Q$ is when the results no longer change appreciably.



              Note that, as you allude to implicitly in the question, this situation is different than the one of trying to compare, e.g., absolute energies from computations run with different methods or at different levels of theory. In this case, there are fundamental/theoretical reasons why those comparisons cannot be meaningfully made.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$















                7












                7








                7





                $begingroup$

                Yes, your error analysis is valid for energy differences. However, I believe it is also valid for the absolute error $epsilon_i$ of any calculated quantity, not just the error $Deltaepsilon$ of an energy difference.



                In any numerical computation, the key thing for situations like this is to ensure that these "structural" sources of error have been reduced to a magnitude that don't affect your results. In this case, this is achieved when you reach a grid quality $Q$ where the numerical results no longer change when you further increase to $Q+delta Q$.



                To be clear: in this case elimination of the imaginary frequencies is not a good criterion for a sufficiently large $Q$. The proper stopping point for refinement of $Q$ is when the results no longer change appreciably.



                Note that, as you allude to implicitly in the question, this situation is different than the one of trying to compare, e.g., absolute energies from computations run with different methods or at different levels of theory. In this case, there are fundamental/theoretical reasons why those comparisons cannot be meaningfully made.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Yes, your error analysis is valid for energy differences. However, I believe it is also valid for the absolute error $epsilon_i$ of any calculated quantity, not just the error $Deltaepsilon$ of an energy difference.



                In any numerical computation, the key thing for situations like this is to ensure that these "structural" sources of error have been reduced to a magnitude that don't affect your results. In this case, this is achieved when you reach a grid quality $Q$ where the numerical results no longer change when you further increase to $Q+delta Q$.



                To be clear: in this case elimination of the imaginary frequencies is not a good criterion for a sufficiently large $Q$. The proper stopping point for refinement of $Q$ is when the results no longer change appreciably.



                Note that, as you allude to implicitly in the question, this situation is different than the one of trying to compare, e.g., absolute energies from computations run with different methods or at different levels of theory. In this case, there are fundamental/theoretical reasons why those comparisons cannot be meaningfully made.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jun 21 at 13:53









                hBy2PyhBy2Py

                14.7k3 gold badges51 silver badges90 bronze badges




                14.7k3 gold badges51 silver badges90 bronze badges



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Chemistry Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchemistry.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f117161%2fcan-i-compare-dft-calculations-with-different-grids%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Category:9 (number) SubcategoriesMedia in category "9 (number)"Navigation menuUpload mediaGND ID: 4485639-8Library of Congress authority ID: sh85091979ReasonatorScholiaStatistics

                    Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bitHow are two different registers being used as “control”?How exactly is the stated composite state of the two registers being produced using the $R_zz$ controlled rotations?Efficiently performing controlled rotations in HHLWould this quantum algorithm implementation work?How to prepare a superposed states of odd integers from $1$ to $sqrtN$?Why is this implementation of the order finding algorithm not working?Circuit construction for Hamiltonian simulationHow can I invert the least significant bit of a certain term of a superposed state?Implementing an oracleImplementing a controlled sum operation

                    Magento 2 “No Payment Methods” in Admin New OrderHow to integrate Paypal Express Checkout with the Magento APIMagento 1.5 - Sales > Order > edit order and shipping methods disappearAuto Invoice Check/Money Order Payment methodAdd more simple payment methods?Shipping methods not showingWhat should I do to change payment methods if changing the configuration has no effects?1.9 - No Payment Methods showing upMy Payment Methods not Showing for downloadable/virtual product when checkout?Magento2 API to access internal payment methodHow to call an existing payment methods in the registration form?