Aluminium KS-DFT versus Thomas–Fermi
This capability example compares the Kohn–Sham density-functional-theory
(KS-DFT, internally qm) and finite-temperature Thomas–Fermi (TF)
electronic backends in Otter. Both electronic models feed the same
ion-sphere pseudoatom, QOZ/HNC, and Chabrier-1990 local-field-correction
construction. The sequence
therefore isolates temperature-dependent electronic-model sensitivity without simultaneously changing the ion density.
The TF construction follows Eqs. (2)–(11) of Starrett and Saumon [2014], while the finite-temperature jellium local-field correction follows Chabrier [1990]. These citations define the methods; no numerical curve is extracted from either paper.
Example and execution modes
Aluminium KS-DFT and Thomas–Fermi comparison
The example has one user setting:
RECOMPUTE_WITH_OTTER = False
The default verifies and loads four checksummed Otter state files. Set
RECOMPUTE_WITH_OTTER=True to make the same script construct
PlasmaWorkflowConfig objects and call solve_plasma_workflow for all
eight calculations. New files are written under
benchmarks/outputs/al_qm_tf/gallery_recomputed and never overwrite or
replace accepted data automatically.
What is plotted
The electronic figure contains exactly two quantities:
\(4\pi r^2[n_{\rm full}(r)-n_0]\) for KS-DFT and TF, shown over \(-1\leq r\leq8\) Bohr; and
\(4\pi r^2n_{\rm scr}(r)\) for both models, shown over \(-1\leq r\leq12\) Bohr.
The negative lower limits are visual margins only; the radial grids begin at positive \(r\). The ionic-density partition is retained in the portable state schema for diagnostics but is intentionally not drawn in this comparison. Separate panels propagate the same electronic results into \(g_{ii}(r)\) and \(S_{ii}(k)\).
Temperature sequence
At 1 and 15 eV, the orbital shell structure produces a large difference in the pseudoatom-partition ionization and in the screening cloud. The difference decreases at 50 eV. By 100 eV, the two ionic structures are very close for this state even though the electronic decompositions are not identical. The four points illustrate a trend; they do not define a universal temperature boundary for the validity of TF theory.
The table below is recomputed from the reviewed v2 files. Delta Z is
\(\bar Z_{\rm TF}-\bar Z_{\rm KS-DFT}\) using the QOZ
pseudoatom-partition ionization. RMSEs use \(r\leq12\) Bohr and
\(k\leq6\) Bohr-1.
\(T\) [eV] |
\(\Delta Z\) |
RMSE \(g_{ii}\) |
RMSE \(S_{ii}\) |
|---|---|---|---|
1 |
+1.84337 |
0.06149 |
0.07227 |
15 |
+1.81427 |
0.04222 |
0.03499 |
50 |
+0.67313 |
0.01246 |
0.01197 |
100 |
-0.18648 |
0.00209 |
0.00160 |
Numerical record
The four pickle-free NPZ files record converged full/external AA stages, threshold-state status, HNC residuals below \(10^{-6}\), transform-closure mismatches below \(10^{-3}\), and the model settings and checksums needed to reproduce the figures. Arrays are restricted to \(r,k<20\) in the following units:
density: Bohr-3
radius: Bohr
wavenumber: Bohr-1
chemical and real-space potential energy: Hartree
reciprocal-space pair potential: Hartree Bohr3
\(g_{ii}\) and \(S_{ii}\): dimensionless
The API model labels are ("qm", "tf"); figures identify qm as
KS-DFT.