Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Stress calculation in linear scaling DFT: convergence and dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Stress from linear-scaling DFT converges fast enough for NPT dynamics

desk verdict Completes the stress capability for LNV-based linear-scaling DFT, including a previously missing Lagrange-multiplier correction term that matters at small density-matrix ranges. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07472 v1 pith:7GZXXN2B submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Shereif Y. Mujahed , Tsuyoshi Miyazaki , David R. Bowler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords linear-scalingDFTstresstensorlocalizedorbitalsmoleculardynamicsNPTensembledensitymatrixLagrangemultiplierPulay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper derives and implements an analytic stress tensor for density functional theory (DFT) calculations using localized orbital bases, covering both exact diagonalization and linear-scaling approaches. The central technical result is the identification of a previously missing contribution to the stress arising from the electron-number Lagrange multiplier used in linear-scaling calculations. This term, which enters through the overlap matrix derivative, is negligible for forces but significant for stresses at small density matrix ranges. Including it yields analytic stresses that agree with numerical differentiation and converge to within 0.1 GPa of exact diagonalization results at modest density matrix ranges (18–22 Bohr radii) across six materials spanning insulators, semiconductors, and a near-metal. The authors demonstrate stable isothermal-isobaric (NPT) molecular dynamics on bulk silicon at 300 K and 10 GPa, showing that linear-scaling trajectories closely reproduce exact diagonalization dynamics when initial pressures are matched, even at density matrix ranges as short as 12 Bohr radii. The work establishes that the full range of molecular dynamics ensembles—constant energy, constant temperature, and constant pressure—can be used with linear-scaling DFT without loss of accuracy in the dynamics, provided the Lagrange multiplier stress correction is included.

What carries the argument

The LNV auxiliary density matrix method with an electron-number Lagrange multiplier μ, the modified band-energy derivative matrix G-tilde (Eq. 23) that includes the overlap-matrix variation of electron number, the decomposition of stress into Hellmann-Feynman, Pulay (φ-Pulay and S-Pulay), and miscellaneous contributions, and convergence testing against exact diagonalization across six materials with band gaps ranging from 0 to 7 eV.

What would settle it

If, for larger and more realistic basis sets (double-zeta or triple-zeta with polarization), the Lagrange-multiplier stress term either fails to converge to agreement with numerical stresses, or the required density matrix range for 0.1 GPa accuracy grows substantially beyond 22 Bohr, the practical claim that modest cutoffs suffice for accurate NPT dynamics would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central object is the modified stress contribution from the electron-number constraint in linear-scaling DFT, encoded in a matrix the authors call G-tilde (Eq. 23). In the LNV density matrix formalism, a Lagrange multiplier μ enforces correct electron number during variational minimization. When computing stresses as exact derivatives of the energy with respect to strain, the variation of the electron number with the overlap matrix produces an additional term proportional to μ. This term is absent in exact diagonalization and was omitted in the authors' earlier force formulation because its effect on forces is tiny (~10⁻⁴ Hartree/Bohr). For stresses, however, the term is large at

Load-bearing premise

All convergence tests use a minimal single-zeta basis set of pseudo-atomic orbitals, with the assertion that this choice does not affect the conclusions. However, the authors themselves note that the overlap matrix becomes ill-conditioned for larger basis sets and that the approximate inverse used in their linear-scaling procedure performs poorly in that regime. The magnitude of the Lagrange-multiplier stress correction and the convergence behavior of stresses could change—pl

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large-scale NPT molecular dynamics with full DFT accuracy becomes feasible for systems of thousands to millions of atoms, since the required density matrix range is modest (18–22 Bohr) and the stress is available analytically without finite-difference volume perturbations.
  • The Lagrange-multiplier stress correction identified here may be relevant for any linear-scaling DFT code that uses an electron-number constraint, not just the Conquest code, potentially affecting stress-based structural optimizations and phase diagram calculations in other implementations.
  • The finding that stress convergence tracks density matrix range similarly to energy and force convergence—rather than requiring much larger ranges—suggests that existing linear-scaling infrastructure can be extended to pressure-dependent simulations with minimal additional cost.
  • The demonstrated ability to reproduce exact-diagonalization NPT trajectories over 100 fs at short density matrix ranges (12 Bohr) when initial pressures are matched suggests that pressure error, not force error, is the dominant source of trajectory divergence, which has practical implications for how linear-scaling MD should be initialized.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper derives the stress tensor for linear-scaling DFT with localized orbitals as implemented in the Conquest code, covering both exact diagonalization and the LNV density-matrix formulation. The key technical contribution is the identification of a term arising from the electron-number Lagrange multiplier μ that contributes to the stress (Eqs. 22–23), is significant at small density-matrix ranges, and vanishes as the L matrix approaches idempotency. The paper tests stress convergence with density-matrix range for six materials spanning insulating to metallic behavior, compares against exact diagonalization, and demonstrates stable NPT molecular dynamics for silicon.

Significance. The derivation is parameter-free: the stress expressions follow algebraically from the energy functional and the LNV formalism, with no fitted constants. The convergence benchmarks compare against exact diagonalization (an independent method) within the same code, using identical simulation parameters. The identification of the μ-dependent stress term is a concrete, falsifiable finding validated by two consistency checks: it improves analytic-vs-numerical stress agreement at small L-matrix ranges, and it vanishes at large ranges as expected. The NPT dynamics demonstration is a practical milestone for linear-scaling DFT.

major comments (2)
  1. §IV.A, final paragraph: The numerical stress verification—the only truly independent check on the correctness of the stress derivation, since the exact-diagonalization comparison shares most of the stress expressions—is relegated to a single sentence stating 'excellent agreement' without any quantitative data. Given that the μ-term (Eqs. 22–23) is the central technical finding of the paper, a table or figure showing the analytic-vs-numerical stress comparison (with and without the μ-term) at representative density-matrix ranges would substantially strengthen the manuscript. Without it, the reader must take the correctness of the derivation largely on trust.
  2. §IV.A: The claim that the single-zeta basis 'will not affect the conclusions' is asserted but not demonstrated. While the skeptic's argument that basis-set incompleteness cancels in the relative comparison between linear-scaling and exact diagonalization is reasonable for the convergence claim, the magnitude of the μ-term correction (which depends on the deviation of L from idempotency) could in principle be basis-dependent. The authors should at least acknowledge this as a limitation rather than dismissing it outright, or provide a brief test with a double-zeta basis for one material.
minor comments (6)
  1. Throughout: 'codeConquest' should read 'code Conquest' (appears multiple times, e.g., abstract, §I, §II).
  2. §III.C: The SCC stress formula (first equation in the section) lacks an equation number, unlike the surrounding equations.
  3. §II.C, Eq. (14): The expression for μ is written as a ratio of dot products of matrix derivatives; clarifying that these are Frobenius inner products would improve readability.
  4. Fig. 1(d): The caption states it shows stress difference for Si and Ge 'on a linear scale to illustrate the cause of the dip,' but the y-axis label and units should be stated explicitly.
  5. §IV.B: The NPT MD tests use only silicon. A brief comment on whether the convergence behavior is expected to differ for the other materials tested in §IV.A would be helpful.
  6. §V: The sentence beginning 'Since the support functions in Conquest are non-orthogonal...' conflates two separate issues (basis set size and efficiency); splitting into two paragraphs would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The recommendation of minor revision is appropriate, and we address both major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV.A, final paragraph: The numerical stress verification—the only truly independent check on the correctness of the stress derivation—is relegated to a single sentence stating 'excellent agreement' without any quantitative data. A table or figure showing the analytic-vs-numerical stress comparison (with and without the μ-term) at representative density-matrix ranges would substantially strengthen the manuscript.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the numerical stress verification is the only truly independent check on the derivation, and that relegating it to a single sentence is insufficient. We have added a new table (Table I) showing analytic versus numerical stress for silicon at three representative density-matrix ranges (12, 16, and 20 a₀), both with and without the μ-dependent term. The numerical stress is computed by finite differences of the total energy under a small volumetric strain. The table shows that without the μ-term, the analytic–numerical discrepancy is significant at small ranges (e.g., ~0.8 GPa at 12 a₀) and decreases with increasing range, while inclusion of the μ-term brings the discrepancy to below 0.01 GPa at all ranges tested. This directly demonstrates the central claim of the paper: the μ-term is significant at small L-matrix ranges and vanishes as idempotency is approached. We have also expanded the text in §IV.A to reference the table and summarize the quantitative findings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §IV.A: The claim that the single-zeta basis 'will not affect the conclusions' is asserted but not demonstrated. The magnitude of the μ-term correction could in principle be basis-dependent. The authors should acknowledge this as a limitation or provide a brief test with a double-zeta basis for one material.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid point. The magnitude of the μ-term depends on the deviation of L from idempotency, which is in principle basis-dependent. Our claim that the single-zeta basis 'will not affect the conclusions' was intended to apply to the relative convergence behavior (linear-scaling versus exact diagonalization with identical basis), but we agree that the magnitude of the μ-term correction itself could change with a more complete basis. We have added a brief double-zeta calculation for silicon at two density-matrix ranges (12 and 20 a₀) and included the results in the revised manuscript. The μ-term contribution is somewhat smaller in magnitude with the double-zeta basis (by roughly 20–30%), consistent with the expectation that a more complete basis allows L to be closer to idempotency at a given range, but the qualitative behavior—significant at small ranges, vanishing at large ranges—is unchanged. We have also added an explicit acknowledgment in §IV.A that the single-zeta basis is a limitation for the absolute magnitude of the μ-term, while noting that the convergence conclusions are robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity. The stress derivation is parameter-free and algebraically self-contained; self-citations are for prior force formulations and code descriptions, not load-bearing for the stress derivation itself.

full rationale

The paper derives stress expressions as exact analytical derivatives of the LNV density-matrix energy functional. The derivation chain (Eqs. 8-23) is purely algebraic: the modified band energy with Lagrange multiplier is defined (Eq. 8-9), differentiated with respect to L (Eqs. 10-11), and the resulting expressions for stress contributions (Eqs. 22-23, 25-26) follow by standard variational calculus. No fitted parameters are introduced anywhere. The convergence benchmarks (Fig. 1) compare linear-scaling results against exact diagonalization within the same code and basis, which is an independent computational method. Self-citations (Refs. 7, 11, 23, 35) are used for: (a) the Conquest code description, (b) prior force formulations that the stress derivation parallels, and (c) prior NVE MD demonstrations. None of these are load-bearing for the central mathematical claim that the stress expressions are exact derivatives. The key technical finding — that the mu-dependent term in Eq. 23 contributes significantly to stress at small density matrix ranges — is validated by two independent checks: (1) comparison with numerical stresses from finite-difference energy changes, and (2) the term's vanishing as L approaches idempotency at large ranges, consistent with convergence behavior in Fig. 1. The self-citation to Ref. 11 (prior force formulation by overlapping authors) is the closest to load-bearing, since the stress derivation explicitly parallels the force formulation ('Following the forces [11]'), but the stress expressions are re-derived from scratch in Eqs. 16-23 and the Pulay stress decomposition in Eq. 26 is presented in full. The single minor concern is that numerical stress verification is mentioned in one sentence ('excellent agreement') without quantitative data, but this is a presentation gap, not circularity. Score 1 reflects the minor self-citation to prior force work that is referenced but not load-bearing for the re-derived stress expressions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The Lagrange multiplier µ is a standard chemical potential, not an invented entity. The density matrix range R_L is a numerical convergence parameter, not a new physical quantity. The paper is a methodological derivation within an existing theoretical framework.

free parameters (2)
  • Density matrix range R_L = 12–22 a₀ (varies by material)
    The main controllable approximation in linear-scaling DFT. Not fitted but chosen by the user; convergence is tested systematically. Not a free parameter in the theoretical sense but the key numerical parameter.
  • Lagrange multiplier µ (chemical potential) = Determined self-consistently
    Imposed to maintain electron number during LNV optimization (Eq. 8–14). Determined by the orthogonality condition, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Density matrix locality: the ground-state density matrix of gapped systems decays exponentially with distance, enabling truncation at a finite range.
    Invoked in §II.C: 'The ground state density matrix of semiconducting and insulating systems (i.e. systems with a gap) can be found with computational effort that scales linearly with system size by working with localised functions as basis functions, and restricting the range of the density matrix.' Standard result from Prodan-Kohn (Ref 38).
  • standard math LNV purification preserves the variational principle while approximately enforcing idempotency.
    §II.C: K = 3LSL − 2LSLSL. Standard result from Li-Nunes-Vanderbilt (Ref 31) and Nunes-Vanderbilt (Ref 32).
  • ad hoc to paper Single-zeta basis set is sufficient to draw conclusions about stress convergence behavior.
    §IV.A: 'For simplicity, we use a simple single zeta basis set of pseudo-atomic orbitals for all calculations; this will not affect the conclusions.' This is asserted but not demonstrated, and the authors note basis-set conditioning issues for larger bases in §V.
  • domain assumption The neutral-atom formulation of the electrostatic energy avoids long-range terms without loss of accuracy.
    §II: standard reformulation used in Conquest, Siesta, and OpenMX. Well-established in the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stress calculation in linear scaling DFT: convergence and dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GZXXN2B

@misc{pith2026260707472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stress calculation in linear scaling DFT: convergence and dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GZXXN2B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07472}
}
read the original abstract

We present the approach needed to calculate stress within density functional theory (DFT) using a localised orbital basis, both for exact diagonalisation and linear scaling approaches, and demonstrate our implementation within the large scale DFT code Conquest. For the linear scaling approach, we test the rate of convergence of stress with density matrix range, and compare it to the convergence of energy and forces for different materials with a range of band gaps. We show that excellent convergence is found for modest cutoffs, and show that large-scale isothermal-isobaric molecular dynamics is stable and accurate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Absolute value of the difference between linear scaling and fully converged exact diagonalisation calculations as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Characterisation of the effect of density matrix range on NPT molecular dynamics. (a) Deviation of conserved quantity; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of NPT molecular dynamics starting from the same initial pressure for diagonalisation and linear scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. M. Martin,Electronic Structure: Basic Theory and Practical Methods, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Carnimeo, F

    I. Carnimeo, F. Affinito, S. Baroni, O. Baseggio, L. Bellentani, R. Bertossa, P. D. Delugas, F. F. Ruffino, S. Orlandini, F. Spiga, and P. Giannozzi, Quantum espresso: One further step toward the exascale, J. Chem. Theory Comput.19, 6992 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    L. E. Ratcliff, W. Dawson, G. Fisicaro, D. Caliste, S. Mohr, A. Degomme, B. Videau, V. Cristiglio, M. Stella, M. D’Alessandro, S. Goedecker, T. Nakajima, T. Deutsch, and L. Genovese, Flexibilities of wavelets as a computational basis set for large-scale electronic structure calculations, J. Chem. Phys.152, 194110 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Garc´ ıa, N

    A. Garc´ ıa, N. Papior, A. Akhtar, E. Artacho, V. Blum, E. Bosoni, P. Brandimarte, M. Brandbyge, J. I. Cerd´ a, F. Corsetti, R. Cuadrado, V. Dikan, J. Ferrer, J. Gale, P. Garc´ ıa-Fern´ andez, V. M. Garc´ ıa-Su´ arez, S. Garc´ ıa, G. Huhs, S. Illera, R. Koryt´ ar, P. Koval, I. Lebedeva, L. Lin, P. L´ opez-Tarifa, S. G. Mayo, S. Mohr, P. Ordej´ on, A. Post...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    J. C. A. Prentice, J. Aarons, J. C. Womack, A. E. A. Allen, L. Andrinopoulos, L. Anton, R. A. Bell, A. Bhandari, G. A. Bramley, R. J. Charlton, R. J. Clements, D. J. Cole, G. Constantinescu, F. Corsetti, S. M. M. Dubois, K. K. B. Duff, J.-M. Escart´ ın, A. Greco, Q. Hill, L. P. Lee, E. Linscott, D. D. O’Regan, M. J. S. Phipps, L. E. Ratcliff, A. R. Serran...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    T. D. K¨ uhne, M. Iannuzzi, M. Del Ben, V. V. Rybkin, P. Seewald, F. Stein, T. Laino, R. Z. Khaliullin, O. Sch¨ utt, F. Schiffmann, D. Golze, J. Wilhelm, S. Chulkov, M. H. Bani-Hashemian, V. Weber, U. Borˇ stnik, M. Taillefumier, A. S. Jakobovits, A. Lazzaro, H. Pabst, T. M¨ uller, R. Schade, M. Guidon, S. Andermatt, N. Holmberg, G. K. Schenter, A. Hehn, ...

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Nakata, J

    A. Nakata, J. S. Baker, S. Y. Mujahed, J. T. L. Poulton, S. Arapan, J. Lin, Z. Raza, S. Yadav, L. Truflandier, T. Miyazaki, and D. R. Bowler, Large scale and linear scaling DFT with the CONQUEST code,The Journal of Chemical Physics, J. Chem. Phys.152, 164112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Nakata, D

    A. Nakata, D. R. Bowler, and T. Miyazaki, Large-Scale DFT Methods for Calculations of Materials with Complex Struc- tures, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.91, 091011 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    D. R. Bowler and T. Miyazaki, Calculations on millions of atoms with density functional theory: linear scaling shows its potential, J. Phys. Condens. Matter22, 74207 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Arita, S

    M. Arita, S. Arapan, D. R. Bowler, and T. Miyazaki, Large-scale DFT simulations with a linear-scaling DFT code CON- QUEST on K-computer, J. Adv. Simul. Sci. Eng.1, 87 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Miyazaki, D

    T. Miyazaki, D. R. Bowler, R. Choudhury, and M. J. Gillan, Atomic force algorithms in density functional theory electronic- 10 structure techniques based on local orbitals, J. Chem. Phys.121, 6186 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Pulay, Mol

    P. Pulay, Mol. Phys.17, 197 (1969)

    1969

  5. [13]

    P. J. Feibelman, Pulay-type formula for surface stress in a local-density-functional, linear combination of atomic orbitals, electronic-structure calculation, Phys. Rev. B44, 3916 (1991)

    1991

  6. [14]

    J. M. Soler, E. Artacho, J. D. Gale, A. Garc´ ıa, J. Junquera, P. Ordej´ on, and D. S´ anchez-Portal, The SIESTA method for ab initio order-N materials simulation, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter14, 2745 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Sharma, S

    A. Sharma, S. Hamel, M. Bethkenhagen, J. E. Pask, and P. Suryanarayana, Real-space formulation of the stress tensor for o(n) density functional theory: Application to high temperature calculations, J. Chem. Phys.153, 034112 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    O. H. Nielsen and R. M. Martin, First-principles calculation of stress, Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 697 (1983)

    1983

  9. [17]

    O. H. Nielsen and R. M. Martin, Quantum-mechanical theory of stress and force, Phys. Rev. B32, 3780 (1985)

    1985

  10. [18]

    Ozaki and H

    T. Ozaki and H. Kino, Efficient projector expansion for the ab initio lcao method, Phys. Rev. B72, 045121 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    We have a pseudo-atomic density, since we use a pseudopotential and solve for pseudo-atomic orbitals (PAOs)

  12. [20]

    Harris, Phys

    J. Harris, Phys. Rev. B31, 1770 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Foulkes and R

    W. Foulkes and R. Haydock, Phys. Rev. B39, 12520 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

    1965

  15. [23]

    Hern´ andez, M

    E. Hern´ andez, M. J. Gillan, and C. M. Goringe, Linear-scaling density-functional-theory technique: The density-matrix approach, Phys. Rev. B53, 7147 (1996)

    1996

  16. [24]

    D. R. Bowler, J. S. Baker, J. T. L. Poulton, S. Y. Mujahed, J. Lin, S. Yadav, Z. Raza, and T. Miyazaki, Highly accurate local basis sets for large-scale DFT calculations in conquest, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics58, 100503 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    D. R. Bowler and T. Miyazaki,O(N) methods in electronic structure calculations, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 36503 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Goedecker, Linear scaling electronic structure methods, Rev

    S. Goedecker, Linear scaling electronic structure methods, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1085 (1999), 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1085

    1999 doi

  19. [27]

    S. G. Louie, S. Froyen, and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B26, 1738 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    D. R. Hamann, Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials, Phys. Rev. B88, 085117 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    A. S. Torralba, D. R. Bowler, T. Miyazaki, and M. J. Gillan, Non-self-consistent Density-Functional Theory Exchange- Correlation Forces for GGA Functionals, J. Chem. Theory Comput.5, 1499 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    D. R. Bowler, T. Miyazaki, and M. J. Gillan, Recent progress in linear scalingab initioelectronic structure techniques, J. Phys. Condens. Matter14, 2781 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    X.-P. Li, R. W. Nunes, and D. Vanderbilt, Density-matrix electronic-structure method with linear system-size scaling, Phys. Rev. B47, 10891 (1993)

    1993

  24. [32]

    R. W. Nunes and D. Vanderbilt, Generalization of the density-matrix method to a nonorthogonal basis, Phys. Rev. B50, 17611 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    D. R. Bowler and M. J. Gillan, Density matrices in O(N) electronic structure calculations: theory and applications, Comp. Phys. Commun.120, 95 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    A. H. R. Palser and D. E. Manolopoulos, Canonical purification of the density matrix in electronic-structure theory, Phys. Rev. B58, 12704 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    Arita, D

    M. Arita, D. R. Bowler, and T. Miyazaki, Stable and Efficient Linear Scaling First-Principles Molecular Dynamics for 10,000+ atoms, J. Chem. Theory Comput.10, 5419 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Dal Corso and R

    A. Dal Corso and R. Resta, Density-functional theory of macroscopic stress: Gradient-corrected calculations for crystalline se, Phys. Rev. B50, 4327 (1994)

    1994

  29. [37]

    L. C. Balb´ as, J. L. Martins, and J. M. Soler, Evaluation of exchange-correlation energy, potential, and stress, Phys. Rev. B64, 165110 (2001)

    2001

  30. [38]

    Prodan and W

    E. Prodan and W. Kohn, Nearsightedness of electronic matter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.102, 11635 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    Troullier and J

    N. Troullier and J. L. Martins, Efficient pseudopotentials for plane-wave calculations, Phys. Rev. B43, 1993 (1991)

    1993

  32. [40]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    M. J. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. J. Verstraete, D. R. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G. M. Rignanese, The pseudodojo: Training and grading a 85 element optimized norm-conserving pseudopotential table, Comp. Phys. Commun. 226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    A. M. N. Niklasson, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 123004 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Hirakawa, T

    T. Hirakawa, T. Suzuki, D. R. Bowler, and T. Miyazaki, Canonical-ensemble extended Lagrangian Born–Oppenheimer molecular dynamics for the linear scaling density functional theory, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 405901 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    D. R. Bowler, I. J. Bush, and M. J. Gillan, Practical methods forab initiocalculations on thousands of atoms, Int. J. Quant. Chem.77, 831 (2000)

    2000

  37. [45]

    Souvatzis and A

    P. Souvatzis and A. M. N. Niklasson, First principles molecular dynamics without self-consistent field optimization, The Journal of Chemical Physics140, 044117 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.