Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ERROR in wigner_seitz: error in finding Wigner-Seitz points #331

Closed
trumanmiguel opened this issue May 23, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #332
Closed

ERROR in wigner_seitz: error in finding Wigner-Seitz points #331

trumanmiguel opened this issue May 23, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #332

Comments

@trumanmiguel
Copy link

Hi Wannier90 developers,

I have the above error. At first, I encountered "error in finding Wigner-Seitz points" in the hamiltonian_wigner_seitz subroutine when running wannier90.x. I increased ws_search_size from 2 to 4 and it works.

When I tried to run postw90.x, I get the above error. For some reason, the error message and the vectors are not fully printed out when I tried running postw90.x again.

I have attached the *.win, *.wout, *.wpout and a data file which contains tot and mp_grid from the wigner_seitz subroutine.

TaAs.win.txt
TaAs.wout.txt
TaAs.wpout.txt
ws.txt

Can someone kindly tell me why I have this error?

Thanks.

Regards,
Truman

@giovannipizzi
Copy link
Member

I think that in #216 the extension to ws_search_size was added here (and following lines):

do n1 = -ws_search_size(1)*mp_grid(1), ws_search_size(1)*mp_grid(1)

but we forgot to do it for at least this function in postw90 here:
do n1 = -mp_grid(1), mp_grid(1)

I don't know if there are more functions - unfortunately the two functions look more or less copy-pasted, with some differences - in the long term we might want to try to unify them.

@gibertini @paulatz any feedback, or chance to make a PR to fix this? Or @trumanmiguel would you be able to apply the same changes as in #216 also to postw90/postw90_common.F90 and check if they work, and ideally then make a pull request?

Thanks!

@gibertini
Copy link

Thanks for reporting this!
Indeed @giovannipizzi is right and it should be sufficient to make the same changes as in #216 also in postw90/postw90_common.F90 (actually I thought I already did it at that time..apologies).
I will fix it as soon as possible. If instead @trumanmiguel is already working on this, please let me know so that we don't do the same thing twice.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants