Bug Reports

Dear Alexander,
We runned a few tests, and, indeed, we found the same behavior. This, though, is not due to an error in the definition in the basis set, but rather to some formatting issue, since the Cs goes up to P4 the code expects that also the Iodine pseudo goes up to P4 and fills the missing coefficients and exponents with zeros.

Luckily there is an easy workaround to this, it is sufficient to flip Cs and I definition in the geometry and the results are the same as the one you obtained by defining the basis set in the input as you can see from my test.

I will leave you here two output snippets hoping that they help clarifying the issue:

Cs defined before I in the geometry section INPUT COORDINATES ATOM AT. N. COORDINATES 1 38 5.000000000000E-01 5.000000000000E-01 5.000000000000E-01 2 55 0.000000000000E+00 0.000000000000E+00 0.000000000000E+00 3 53 0.000000000000E+00 5.000000000000E-01 5.000000000000E-01 [...] ******************************************************************************* *** PSEUDOPOTENTIAL INFORMATION *** ******************************************************************************* ATOMIC NUMBER 38, NUCLEAR CHARGE 10.000, PSEUDOPOTENTIAL TYPE EXPONENT COEFF. N EXPONENT COEFF. N P0 TMS 6.9334610 135.2710429 0 4.1140038 17.9440714 0 P1 TMS 7.2168166 29.4380813 0 7.1736962 58.8806749 0 3.0227988 4.9362827 0 2.8656990 9.7233521 0 P2 TMS 6.3215146 11.9072392 0 6.3914995 17.8595514 0 1.7697266 2.1991802 0 1.6367717 2.8935709 0 P3 TMS 4.2441984 -5.5093333 0 4.2291645 -7.3046417 0 ATOMIC NUMBER 55, NUCLEAR CHARGE 9.000, PSEUDOPOTENTIAL TYPE EXPONENT COEFF. N EXPONENT COEFF. N P0 TMS 4.0811192 84.5477223 0 2.4215224 16.6540350 0 P1 TMS 5.5339726 52.3496307 0 5.5067944 104.6994132 0 2.2809616 8.8065577 0 2.1034905 17.6166111 0 P2 TMS 1.8131494 5.2689855 0 1.8077217 7.9036419 0 0.8729040 1.3364313 0 0.8587203 2.0056513 0 P3 TMS 5.2170839 -16.4976543 0 5.1481965 -23.3081313 0 1.5805995 -2.2368273 0 1.3478959 -2.2269420 0 P4 TMS 1.8077398 -2.5041987 0 1.8050613 -3.1382445 0 ATOMIC NUMBER 53, NUCLEAR CHARGE 25.000, PSEUDOPOTENTIAL TYPE EXPONENT COEFF. N EXPONENT COEFF. N P0 TMS 40.0333760 49.9896490 0 17.3005760 281.0065560 0 8.8517200 61.4167390 0 P1 TMS 15.7201410 67.4162390 0 15.2082220 134.8076960 0 8.2941860 14.5665480 0 7.7539490 28.9684220 0 P2 TMS 13.8177510 35.5387560 0 13.5878050 53.3397590 0 6.9476300 9.7164660 0 6.9600990 14.9775000 0 P3 TMS 18.5229500 -20.1766180 0 18.2510350 -26.0880770 0 7.5579010 -0.2204340 0 7.5974040 -0.2216460 0 P4 TMS 0.0000000 0.0000000 0 0.0000000 0.0000000 0 I defined before Cs in the geometry section INPUT COORDINATES ATOM AT. N. COORDINATES 1 38 5.000000000000E-01 5.000000000000E-01 5.000000000000E-01 2 53 0.000000000000E+00 5.000000000000E-01 5.000000000000E-01 3 55 0.000000000000E+00 0.000000000000E+00 0.000000000000E+00 [...] ******************************************************************************* *** PSEUDOPOTENTIAL INFORMATION *** ******************************************************************************* ATOMIC NUMBER 38, NUCLEAR CHARGE 10.000, PSEUDOPOTENTIAL TYPE EXPONENT COEFF. N EXPONENT COEFF. N P0 TMS 6.9334610 135.2710429 0 4.1140038 17.9440714 0 P1 TMS 7.2168166 29.4380813 0 7.1736962 58.8806749 0 3.0227988 4.9362827 0 2.8656990 9.7233521 0 P2 TMS 6.3215146 11.9072392 0 6.3914995 17.8595514 0 1.7697266 2.1991802 0 1.6367717 2.8935709 0 P3 TMS 4.2441984 -5.5093333 0 4.2291645 -7.3046417 0 ATOMIC NUMBER 53, NUCLEAR CHARGE 25.000, PSEUDOPOTENTIAL TYPE EXPONENT COEFF. N EXPONENT COEFF. N P0 TMS 40.0333760 49.9896490 0 17.3005760 281.0065560 0 8.8517200 61.4167390 0 P1 TMS 15.7201410 67.4162390 0 15.2082220 134.8076960 0 8.2941860 14.5665480 0 7.7539490 28.9684220 0 P2 TMS 13.8177510 35.5387560 0 13.5878050 53.3397590 0 6.9476300 9.7164660 0 6.9600990 14.9775000 0 P3 TMS 18.5229500 -20.1766180 0 18.2510350 -26.0880770 0 7.5579010 -0.2204340 0 7.5974040 -0.2216460 0 ATOMIC NUMBER 55, NUCLEAR CHARGE 9.000, PSEUDOPOTENTIAL TYPE EXPONENT COEFF. N EXPONENT COEFF. N P0 TMS 4.0811192 84.5477223 0 2.4215224 16.6540350 0 P1 TMS 5.5339726 52.3496307 0 5.5067944 104.6994132 0 2.2809616 8.8065577 0 2.1034905 17.6166111 0 P2 TMS 1.8131494 5.2689855 0 1.8077217 7.9036419 0 0.8729040 1.3364313 0 0.8587203 2.0056513 0 P3 TMS 5.2170839 -16.4976543 0 5.1481965 -23.3081313 0 1.5805995 -2.2368273 0 1.3478959 -2.2269420 0 P4 TMS 1.8077398 -2.5041987 0 1.8050613 -3.1382445 0

I hope this helps

Hi,

We have run some tests and we have identified the origin of the problem. The calculation fails in the evaluation of the Fermi energy in the NEWK option (so before getting to the BOLTZTRA step) because of large memory requirements due to a very large number of k-points being asked and because of the replicated-memory parallel implementation of that bit of code.

In that part of the code, with Pproperties (parallel version), data are replicated in memory by each process.

We have run tests on this system in parallel with different number of processes (on a computing node with 128 CPU cores) and for different shrinking factor parameters of the NEWK keyword. Results are summarized in the table below:

analysis.png

"ok" marks combinations for which the calculation run without errors. The trend is clear and can be rationalized as follows:

reducing the number of k points reduces memory requirments reducing the number of MPI processes effectively increases the available memory/process

Hope this clarifies things and helps find a way forward,

JohnKendrick
I have had the same problem in a slightly different task. I have found a solution, but it may not work for your particular task: I have reduced the number of k-points.
I am modelling Mn5+ ion in a AlPO4 cell in which one P is replaced by Mn.
My input is

EXTERNAL FREQCALC ANALYSIS INTENS INTRAMAN INTCPHF END END BASISSET POB-TZVP-REV2 DFT WC1LYP SPIN END EXCHSIZE 44000000 BIPOSIZE 44000000 SHRINK 6 6 TOLINTEG 9 9 9 12 20 MAXCYCLE 400 TOLDEE 10 SPINLOCK 2 -6 ATOMSPIN 1 10 1 SLOSHING END

The same input with

SHRINK 8 8

Produced the same error as yours, regardless of convergence tools (DIIS / NODIIS (in CPHF block) / buffer sizes / etc):

ELECTRIC FIELD APPLIED ALONG CARTESIAN DIRECTIONS XX [some lines omitted] BECKE WEIGHT FUNCTION RADSAFE = 2.00 TOLERANCES - DENSITY:10**- 6; POTENTIAL:10**- 9; GRID WGT:10**-14 RADIAL INTEGRATION - INTERVALS (POINTS,UPPER LIMIT): 1( 75, 4.0*R) ANGULAR INTEGRATION - INTERVALS (ACCURACY LEVEL [N. POINTS] UPPER LIMIT): 1( 4[ 86] 0.2) 2( 8[ 194] 0.5) 3( 12[ 350] 0.9) 4( 16[ 974] 3.5) 5( 12[ 350]9999.0) TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT MOQGAD TELAPSE 7695.33 TCPU 7664.63 forrtl: severe (67): input statement requires too much data, unit 81, file /scratch/tmp_p267436_student/fort.81.pe11

All running on a single machine: Dell EMC C6400 Server (2x20-Core Intel XEON Gold 6148 2.40GHz, 192GB RAM, 3x480GB SSD).

Hi andrejsc,
There is no "hardcoded" switch in the TOLINTEG keyword, I suspect that the quote from the manual comes from the "old days", when a threshold of \( 10^{-20} \) was considered absurdly small. However, with advances in hardware and the increasingly complex structures we want to compute, such thresholds are sometimes necessary.

A small note: don't warry about going past machine precision with these small numbers. All evaluations of integral thresholds in the code are performed at the logaritmic level (ie only on the exponent), so you should be fine even with a value of 1 million in TOLINTEG (though maybe not fine in terms of computation time)

Hi,

jquertin said in SCF fails spinlock with POB-DZVP-REV2:

In the case of SPINLOCK, the manual clearly explain that the NSPIN value is the difference in number of alpha and beta electrons. For SPINLOC2, the text only refers to the spin while the table gives the same definition for SPIN as for NSPIN (in SPINLOCK).

The argument SPIN of SPINLOC2 still represents a number of electrons, as in SPINLOCK.

jquertin said in SCF fails spinlock with POB-DZVP-REV2:

Furthermore, in the calculation, if using SPINLOC2 with 6 or 6.0 as the spin (as defined in the table), crystal defaults to SPINLOCK.

That's right. SPINLOC2 requires a non integer argument. For integer arguments it reduces to SPINLOCK.

jquertin said in SCF fails spinlock with POB-DZVP-REV2:

In short, if I define SPINLOC2 SPIN as 3 (1/2 * 6) or 3.0, crystal defaults to SPINLOCK with NSPIN 3 which is actually half of what I want.

In both SPINLOCK and SPINLOC2, the argument is meant as a number of electrons. Thus, if you have 6 extra up electrons with respect to down electrons, the input value should be 6, not 3. For integer values, SPINLOC2 is of no use.

Hope this clarifies things a little,

very grateful, I will run it again but not sure what to do here if it aborts again

thank you