arxiv:cond-mat/ v1 [cond-mat.other] 14 Dec 2005

Transcription

1 Managing the supercell approximation for charge efects in semiconuctors: finite size scaling, charge correction factors, the bangap problem an the ab initio ielectric constant. arxiv:con-mat/52v [con-mat.other] 4 Dec 25 C W M Castleton,2,, A.Höglun an S Mirbt Material Physics, Materials an Semiconuctor Physics Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Electrum 229, SE-4 Kista, Sween. 2 Department of Physical Electronics/Photonics, ITM, Mi Sween University, SE-57 Sunsvall, Sween. an Theory of Conense Matter, Department of Physics, Uppsala University, Box 5, SE-752 Uppsala, Sween. (Date: September 7, 2) The errors arising in ab initio ensity functional theory stuies of semiconuctor point efects using the supercell approximation are analyze. It is emonstrate that a) the leaing finite size errors are inverse linear an inverse cubic in the supercell size, an b) finite size scaling over a series of supercells gives reliable isolate charge efect formation energies to aroun ±.5 ev. The scale results are use to test three correction methos. The Makov-Payne metho is insufficient, but combine with the scaling parameters yiels an ab initio ielectric constant of.6±4. for InP. Γ point corrections for efect level ispersion are completely incorrect, even for shallow levels, but re-aligning the total potential in real-space between efect an bulk cells actually corrects the electrostatic efect-efect interaction errors as well. Isolate efect energies to ±. ev are then obtaine using a atom supercell, though this oes not improve for larger cells. Finally, finite size scaling of known opant levels shows how to treat the ban gap problem: in 2 atom supercells with no corrections, continuing to consier levels into the theoretical conuction ban (extene gap) comes closest to experiment. However, for larger cells or when supercell approximation errors are remove, a scissors scheme stretching the theoretical ban gap onto the experimental one is in fact correct. PACS numbers: 6.72.Bb 7.5.Dx 7.55.Eq 6.72.Ji I. INTRODUCTION. Unerstaning the properties of point efects an opants is of key importance in stuying the electrical an optical properties of semiconuctors. While various experimental techniques have been evelope over the last half century it is only in recent years that they have starte to be matche by accurate first principles computational techniques. Developments in computing power have now mae ab initio Density Functional Theory (DFT) one of the most versatile atomic scale tools available for the investigation of efect properties in semiconuctors an insulators. The key quantity to calculate is the efect formation energy E C = ET(efect C q ) ET(no C efect)+ µ i n i q(ε v + ε F ) i () where ET C(efect) an EC T (no efect) are the total energy of the supercell C with an without the efect, (or charge q,) calculate using the same values of planewave cutoff, k-point gri, etc, to make use of the cancellation of errors. The efect is forme by aing/removing n i atoms of chemical potential µ i. ε F is the Fermi level, measure from ε v, the valence ban ege (VBE). Almost all properties of a efect can be erive from variations in an ifferences between formation energies. The metho is very powerful, but critical limitations remain, two of the most important being the relatively small number of atoms which can be treate an the effect of the approximations, such as the Local Density an Generalize Graient Approximations (LDA an GGA) require to solve the DFT itself. These treat quantum many boy correlation an exchange effects incompletely, which in the case of semiconuctors an insulators results in a roughly 5% unerestimation of the bangap. This in turn has severe consequences for the calculation of efect transfer levels, the values of ε F at which the most stable charge state of the efect changes, given by the ifference in E C between the two states. The positions of the transfer levels govern whether the efect will be a single or multiple acceptor or onor, with levels eep insie the gap, or with shallow levels near to the ban eges. Since the preicte ban gap iffers so strongly from the experimental one it is very har to map the calculate transfer levels onto the experimental gap an hence preict the electrical properties of the material. Meanwhile, the small number of atoms involve (s or s) means that the bounary conitions become very important. One of the most common approaches is to use Perioic Bounary Conitions (PBCs) together with a plane wave basis set 2. A supercell containing the efect in question is repeate perioically throughout space. The cell bounary thus looks bulk-like, rather than being a vacuum as with open bounary conitions. However, it also means that the efect interacts with an infinite array of images of itself seen in the PBCs. This alters E C, making it (an most other efect properties) supercell size epenent. The true efect properties are only recovere in the limit of an infinitely large supercell, equivalent to the limit of an isolate efect. This problem is particularly severe in the case of charge efects, where the Maelung energy becomes infinite if the charge is not neutralize using a uniform jellium backgroun. Even with jellium, the calculate formation energies can be wrong by several ev in supercells of the orer of s or s of atoms, an we have previously shown 4,5 that finite size errors on this scale can even arise for neutral efects. Various authors, 6,7, have attempte to create corrections schemes to estimate an remove

2 2 these errors, the most wiely known being that of Makov an Payne. Although these corrections are often use their accuracy has been strongly questione, with several stuies suggesting that they are not reliably enough for regular use 6,9,. We previously 4,5 suggeste that the supercell size errors can instea be eliminate by calculating the same efect properties in a series of supercells of ifferent sizes but the same symmetry an then finite size scaling the results to recover those of the infinite supercell. We foun that E C varies with the supercell size, L, as E C (L)=E + a L + a n L n (2) where a, a n an E are fitting parameters, E being the finite size scale formation energy corresponing to an infinitely large supercell. The linear term has been iscusse many times previously, first by Leslie an Gillian. For neutral efects we foun the correct value for n to be. This is actually very intuitive: most sources of error shoul vary with either the supercell size L (the efect-efect image istance) or with the cell volume L (proportional to the jellium charge ensity, the number of atoms, the number of electrons, etc). Terms scaling with the surface area, 6L 2, seem unlikely to be ominant. Here, two further sources of error must also be consiere. Firstly, since the electrostatic potential in a supercell with PBCs is only efine up to a constant, the zero on the energy scale must be chosen arbitrarily in each calculation. In the case of most pseuopotential coes (incluing the one we use) this occurs as an implicit average over values appropriate to each atom species in the supercell, weighte by the number of atoms of each species. This means that the numerical value of ε F entering Eq changes with the contents of the cell, leaing to an aitional finite size error. If the number of efects per supercell is constant then this error ecreases with the number of atoms in the cell - essentially with the volume of the cell, L. Hence this error is completely taken care of in the infinite supercell limit of our finite size scaling scheme. For iniviual supercells, Van e Walle an Neugebauer suggest correcting the error by re-aligning the potential in the efect cell to that of the bulk, using its real-space value at some chosen point in a bulk-like region far from the efect. (We here use the point furthest from the efect in the unrelaxe cell.) Seconly, aitional errors come from the ispersion of the efect levels introuce by overlap between the efect state wavefunctions an their PBC images. It has been suggeste that this artificially raises E C when k-points other than just the Γ point are use. It is suggeste that E C shoul then be shifte by q ( εd Γ ) εks D, where ε Γ D an εd ks are the values of the Kohn-Sham level corresponing to the efect state calculate in the efect cell at the Γ point an average over the sample k-points respectively. The assumption is that the value of the efect level is correct at the Γ point, so the ifference between that an the k-point average value shoul be remove. It has been shown by Höglun et al. 2 that this is completely incorrect for the example of the phosphorus antisite in GaP. By plotting the banstructure of the efect level in ifferent size supercells it was shown that the efect level in the smaller cells is more-or-less correct when average over the sample k-points, but much too low at the Γ point. The same is also true for the As vacancy on the GaAs() surface, for example. Van e Walle an Neugebauer instea point out that in this respect there is a funamental ifference between eep levels such as these an shallow efect levels. They suggest that the correction shoul only be applie when evaluating transfer levels for shallow onors an acceptors. In the current paper we will show in section III that Eq 2 with n = also hols for charge efects, so that finite size scaling can be use to prouce fully finite-size correcte efect formation an other energies, with well efine error bars an uncertainty. To o this we will stuy example efects in the zinc-blen structure III-V semiconuctor InP. These are chosen to inclue all types of native efects (vacancies, antisites an interstitials) as well as some common opants at both substitutional an interstitial sites. Each is stuie in one charge state only, usually the one that previous stuies 5,4 suggest it has over the majority of the bangap. The specific choices have been mae to inclue all non-zero values from - to +. These results will also enable us in section IV to perform the most objective an comprehensive reliability test we are currently aware of on other, computationally cheaper, correction schemes. (Previous tests rely on only one or two - usually rather simple - examples, an o not generally have reliable isolate formation energies to compare with.) We will test the Makov-Payne scheme, potential re-alignment an ispersion corrections for shallow levels. In section IV D we will also erive an ab initio ielectric constant for InP by combining the scaling results with those of the Makov-Payne correction scheme. Finally, in section V we will use finite size scaling to provie the first clear-cut answer to the problem of mapping LDA or GGA transfer levels onto the experimental bangap. Computational etails are in the next section, an in section VI we will conclue. II. COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS. We use planewave ab initio DFT within the local ensity approximation (LDA) together with ultrasoft pseuopotentials 5 (US-PP) using the VASP coe 6. Since we expect (at least) a parameter fit we nee at least 4 supercells. These must all be of the same symmetry since the errors scale ifferently for ifferent symmetries. We choose simple cubic supercells containing,, 26 an 52 atoms. It woul be preferable to replace the atom cell by the atom one, but our computing resources are currently insufficient for k-point converge calculations with atoms. On the other han, we previously foun that, somewhat surprisingly, the atom supercell is goo enough in most cases: formation energies in this cell usually lie very close to the scaling curves, proviing satisfactorily small error bars on the scale values. Similarly, memory limitations force us to treat the inium 4 electrons as core, even though they are comparatively shallow: about 4.5 ev below the VBE. This leas 5 to errors of up to.5 ev, but these are essentially supercell size inepenent. They

3 can easily be estimate in, say, the atom cell an ae back onto the scale E at the en. Our optimize LDA lattice constant using these chosen pseuopotentials 7 is 5.27 Å an the ban gap is.667 ev, compare to 5.69 Å an.44 ev in experiment. We use µ P =.45 ev an µ In = 6.24 ev, corresponing to stoiciometric conitions, together with µ Zn =.9 ev, µ Si = ev an µ S = 4.6 ev. For the atom cell a planewave cutoff energy of 2 ev an a Monkhorst-Pack 4x4x4 k-point gri was previously foun 7 sufficient to restrict errors to O(. ev) or less. When analyzing the errors arising from the supercell approximation itself, non-finite size epenent errors 5 (from the In pseuopotential, planewave cutoff etc) are not a problem. However, we o nee to keep the k-point sampling errors own to at least the mev scale, since this convergence rate varies with supercell size. This is a much higher convergence criterion than is normally practical, necessary or even meaningful, an it is the reason that we pick only a limite number of example efects for this stuy. This convergence level can be achieve 5 by using the average E C = N N E C (N) N N () weighte by the number of points in the full Brillouin zone, where E C (N) is the formation energy calculate using an N N N Monkhorst-Pack k-point gri. The sum over N is taken up to 2 in the atom cell, in the atom cell an 4, or for certain cases 6, in the 26 an 52 atom supercells in the unrelaxe geometries. (The weighte mean E C converges much faster than the unweighte mean or the iniviual values E C (N) themselves.) We present both non-relaxe (ions at ieal lattice sites) an relaxe calculations. No restrictions are place upon the symmetry of relaxations, but we o not allow atoms locate on the surface of the cell to relax. The relaxation energy ε Relax (N)=E C:Rx (N) E C:I (N) (4) (where E C:Rx (N) an E C:I (N) are E C (N) with atoms at relaxe an ieal positions respectively) converges faster with N than either E C:Rx (N) or E C:I (N). Hence we save computational time by approximating the relaxe formation energies by E C:Rx E C:Rx E C:I ε Relax (N)=E C:I + E C:Rx (N) E C:I (N) (5) The relaxation energies use are weighte averages using 6x6x6 an xx k-point gris in the atom cell, 2x2x2 an (if the convergence is uncertain) 4x4x4 gris in the atom cell an 2x2x2 in the 26 an 52 atom supercells. For the latter cells we usually restrict the k-point gri to the irreucible Brillouin zone of the unisturbe bulk lattice. In other wors, we use just the special k-point (.25,.25,.25): the first Chai-Cohen k-point 9. This restriction is equivalent to assuming that the istortion in the banstructure ue to the presence of the efect is either localize (thus important only very near Γ) or symmetric. It introuces a small error whose significance again isappears in the large supercell limit. III. FINITE SIZE SCALING OF DEFECT FORMATION ENERGIES. A. Scale formation energies for the example efects. Fig shows the formation energy scaling for the example efects in InP. The scaling curves using the uncorrecte, as-calculate values are shown as soli lines in the figures (black in the online colour version). Their y-axis intersects give the E values liste in table I. The curves also serve to preict the formation energy which woul be expecte in any finite size supercell: for example the formation energies in the atom supercell are those at /L =. in the figures. We can estimate how accurate the E values are by aing the four otte (black) curves shown for each example in Fig, in each of which one of the four ata points has been omitte. (Note that for some cases the errors are so small that the otte lines are har to pick out, but they are still present in the figure.) The sprea in y-axis intersects gives the error bars liste in the table. This is one of the particular avantages of using finite size scaling: it is possible not only to correct for the finite size errors themselves, but also to obtain a well efine uncertainty on the resulting energies - something other correction schemes can not provie. The errors obtaine are on the.-. ev range or below, (smaller error are here roune to. ev) an can oubtless be further improve if still large supercells are use. Note that, by construction, the errors which arise if only the,, an 26 atom supercells are use for the scaling are also on this.-. ev level (See table I.) The fact that such small error bars can be obtaine inicates that a) scaling is a viable an practical approach to supercell approximation errors, b) the k-point convergence is sufficient for our current purpose an c) our enforce use of the atom supercell is actually reasonable, for the same reasons escribe above an previously 5. B. Form of the scaling. The choice of n = again provies the best overall fit to the ata, both for relaxe an non-relaxe calculations. Normalize χ 2 tests 5 show that on average n=2 provies fits 2.9 times worse than n = whilst n = 4 is 2.2 times worse. We note, however, that there are aitional small (probably O(.) ev or less) short-range errors present which ecay exponentially with supercell size. These arise chiefly from the irect overlap of boun efect states with their PBC images an the resulting ispersion of the efect levels. In the case of relaxe energies some aitional short range errors can appear because efects in the atom cell are only surroune by shell of relaxable atoms. The effect of this upon the form of the scaling can be seen in Fig 2. Here we show the scaling of the elastic contribution to the finite size errors. This is one by calculating formation energies in the 26 atom cell only, so that the electrostatic errors are essentially constant. The number of shells of atoms permitte to relax aroun the efect is varie an the resulting formation energies are plotte against

4 4 (ev) Defect formation energy, E C P i a) 5 b) c) ) e) -2 In 2 - P Si P +2 Zn 4 2 i + S + - P - In i f) g) h) i) j) P In V 5 P Si In V - Zn V P In In Inverse supercell size (Å - ) (Top: number of atoms in cell.) FIG. : (Colour online.) Scaling of ( ) unrelaxe an (+) relaxe formation energies. Curves are fits to Eq 2 with n=. Soli (black) curves are fits to the four points as calculate (no corrections.) Dotte (black) lines each have one cell omitte for accuracy assessment. Scaling of the calculate values with various correction factors are shown for certain examples, as follows. Potential re-alignment: long ashe (re) lines in panels a) to g), an accuracy assessment for them: otte (re) lines in panels a) to ). Dispersion corrections: short ashe (orange) lines in e) an f). Dispersion+potential corrections combine: ot-ashe (purple) lines in e) an f). First orer (L ) Makov-Payne corrections as ot-ot-ashe (blue) lines in panels g) to j). First+thir orer (L + L ) Makov-Payne corrections: short ashe (pink) lines in h) to j). First orer Makov-Payne+potential corrections combine: ash-ash-ot (green) lines in panel g). the inverse of the raius of the outermost relaxe atom shell. Hence the y-intersect correspons to the formation energy expecte if an infinite number of shells are relaxe aroun the efect, but with the electrostatic errors inherent for the 26 atom supercell. As expecte, an as for the neutral efects 5, the elastic errors are preominantly linear. Inee, if the one shell only point from each curve is omitte then a linear fit works perfectly. (Soli lines in Fig 2.) The one shell only point correspons to relaxations in the atom cell, so we expect that the elastic contribution to the supercell approximation errors scales linearly with supercell size apart from some aitional short range errors essentially only affecting the atom cell. These various short range errors have never-the-less only a very limite impact upon the final results, introucing only some aitional scatter in the curves in Fig, an hence leaing to larger error bars in some cases. They also lea to n=2 or n=4 actually proviing the best fit for some iniviual efects. However, in these latter cases the fitting with n = is almost always a very close secon. These problems can be overcome in a few years time once improve computing resources allow the stuy to be repeate using the atom supercell. For now we can still conclue that the elastic errors are essentially inverse-linear in supercell size, while the total formation energy errors (relaxe or unrelaxe) o inee scale with the inverse-linear imension an the inverse volume of the supercell. IV. ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTION SCHEMES. In aition to the as-calculate formation energies, Fig also shows the formation energy scaling using various correction schemes. For clarity an space we o not show all possible corrections for all example efects, but results for all schemes are liste in tables I an II. All schemes recover

5 5 TABLE I: Scale relaxe an unrelaxe (ieal lattice sites) formation energies with (E,φ ) an without (E ) potential corrections, for various example efects in InP. Note that the error bars are not actually symmetric: the wiest has been liste in each case. ε(l ) an ε(l ) are ab initio values of the ielectric constant ε for InP, calculate by comparing the Makov-Payne corrections of orer L an L with the coefficients a an a obtaine from the scaling. ε φ (L ) is the same thing calculate from the potential-correcte formation energies. All energies in ev, ielectric constants in units of the free space ielectric constant ε. Ieal structures Relaxe structures Defect E E,φ ε(l ) ε(l ) ε φ (L ) E E,φ ε(l ) ε(l ) ε φ (L ) V + P.95±.9 2.± ±.4.± V - In 6.52± ± ±.5 4.6± P +2 In 2.6±.4 2.4± ±.4.± In -2 P 4.25±. 4.25± ±. 4.± P + i(p) 4.5±.7.2± ±. 2.24± In + i(p).67±. 2.± ±.4.6± Zn +2 i(p).2±..5± ±.2.± Zn - In.9±..9± ±..47± Si - P.2±..5± ±.4.75± S + P -.7±.2 -.5± ±. -.7± Si + In.62±..5± ±. -.5± Average ±.5 ± ±.5 ± Average over both relaxe an unrelaxe structures: ±.5 ± TABLE II: Assessment of correction schemes: Finite size errors (relative to the scale values) are shown for the atom supercell: δ E is the error in the as-calculate formation energy, δ E+ an δ E++ are the errors when Makov-Payne corrections are use to orer L an L respectively. δ LDA E+ is the error when orer L corrections are use, calculate with the ab initio ielectric constant evaluate from the results themselves (see text.) δ E+k is the error when efect level ispersion is correcte for in the ionize states of the shallow onors an acceptors. Columns δ φ E etc are the same as δ E etc but electrostatic potential realignments ae. The averages are of the absolute error values δ E. All energies in ev. Ieal structures Relaxe structures Defect δ E δ E+ δ E++ δ LDA E+ δ φ E δ φ E+ δ E+k δ φ E+k δ E δ E+ δ E++ δ LDA E+ δ φ E δ φ E+ δ E+k δ φ E+k V + P V - In P +2 In In -2 P P + i(p) In + i(p) Zn +2 i(p) Zn - In Si - P S + P Si + In Average Average over both relaxe an unrelaxe structures: the correct formation energy in the infinite supercell limit, but not all prouce improvements over the uncorrecte formation energies for smaller supercells. This is shown in table II, which lists the resiual errors (relative to the infinite supercell limit) when the corrections are applie in the atom cell. The uncorrecte atom cell formation energies contain average errors of about.5-.6 ev, while using the potential realignment scheme prouces errors of aroun. ev. Makov- Payne oes much worse (average errors aroun.-.4 ev, but often much larger) an the ispersion corrections prouce errors which can be even larger than those in the uncorrecte formation energies. A. Potential Realignment The potential re-alignment scheme is illustrate by the long-ashe (re) curves an points in Figs a) to g). Even by

6 6 E Relax (ev) Inverse shell raius (Å - ) FIG. 2: (Colour online.) Scaling of the elastic contribution to the finite size errors in efect formation energies. Formation energies in the 26 atom shell are plotte versus the inverse of the raius of the outermost shell of atoms permitte to relax. Zn - In ( ), Si+ In ( ), In + i(p) ( ), P+2 In (+), V- In ( ) an In-2 P ( ). Soli (green) an ashe (re) lines: linear fits with the shell only point omitte an inclue respectively. Dotte (blue) lines: quaratic fits to all points. the atom supercell the values are very goo inee. However, a lot of aitional scatter is introuce into the correcte formation energies, E C,φ. Inee, the average errors relative to (the uncorrecte) E o not shrink at all with increasing supercell size:.7 ev in the atom cell,. ev in the 26 atom cell an.9 ev in the 52 atom cell (see table II). This leas to wie error bars if the E C,φ values are scale to give the infinite supercell limit, E,φ. We have erive scaling error bars by the same technique escribe above. The resulting E,φ values an error bars are liste in Table I, although the (re) otte curves with ata points are only shown in Figs a) to ). We fin error bars of up to ±.7 ev, average±.24 ev. This means that potential realignment is a useful correction for the results from iniviual supercells, but shoul not be use if more accurate results or efine error bars on results are require. In that case non-realigne values shoul be scale. These error bars are certainly too large to provie a basis for analysis of other correction schemes. The reason is that the correction scheme, goo though it is, is not actually complete or correct. Even in the largest supercells, the point furthest from the efect is not bulk-like, as the scheme assumes, resulting in either an over estimate or an uner estimate, epening upon the specific conitions. 5 4 B. Dispersion Corrections The ispersion correction scheme is illustrate for shallow onors an acceptors in Fig e) an f) an in Table I, both with (short ashe, orange curves) an without (ot-ashe purple curves) potential alignment. Although the acceptor states fare better than the onors, the correcte values are always worse than those using only potential re-alignment, an usually worse than even the uncorrecte formation energies. Clearly, even for shallow efect levels, which follow closely the VBE or conuction ban ege (CBE), εd Γ still prouces worse formation energies than ε ks D. C. Makov-Payne Corrections Fig g) shows the first orer L Makov-Payne corrections, with (ash-ash-ot, green) an without (ot-ot-ash, blue) potential re-alignment. When use together the two schemes usually prouce a large over-estimate of the require correction, (see columns 7 an 5 of table II,) almost as if using both corrections actually makes the same correction twice. Since the combination oes so much worse than either technique alone there is no point going further with it. Instea, Figs h) to j) show Makov-Payne corrections only, with formation energies incluing both the orer L corrections (short ashe, magenta) an the orer L plus orer L corrections (otot-ashe, blue). The orer L corrections work well in some cases (such as In + i(p) when relaxations are omitte), but in most cases they are too large by a factor of about 2 to 2, (as also note by others 6,9 ) so that the correcte formation energies are little better than the uncorrecte ones. When the orer L corrections are ae the correct formation energies are obtaine in some cases, such as V - In, but in other cases, such as P +2 In, they help but are not sufficient. For other cases, such as V + P, the corrections actually move the formation energies in the wrong irection. Table II shows that the corrections are generally more likely to succee for unrelaxe formation energies which is to be expecte since the electrostatic monopole terms are not the only ones to scale as L : the elastic errors o too. This means that even in principle the Makov-Payne corrections are only useful for non-relaxe formation energies, which are rarely the interesting ones. Besies this, the corrections also o better for more highly charge efects. This confirms that one of the problems is that they o not take into account the various other error terms which epen upon supercell size but not on charge state. These errors mostly have to o with the spurious efect level ispersion introuce by the PBCs. Although the irect contributions of these are exponentially ecaying 5, their effects can still be seen in supercells on the scale of - atoms. Inee the actual ban with can be on the orer of, for example,.5 ev an 2 ev in the atom an atom supercells 2 an remain significant even beyon that. Inirect ispersion effects can also be very important: for example, in a partially fille, erroneously isperse efect level only the lower part will be fille, leaing to too low a value for E C. Worse happens if the efect level lies outsie the ban gap, either because it genuinely oes or because the supercell is too small. This can lea to strong linear terms in the supercell size errors even for neutral efects 5 : a neutral efect can behave as, say a - charge efect with (to a first approximation) a + charge jellium backgroun. This is not limite to neutral efects: a calculation for a efect anticipate to be in a +2 charge state (with a -2 charge jellium) coul en up behaving more like a + charge efect with a - charge jellium. If the efect level moves outsie the bangap at certain k-points only it can lea to a linear error term which is not

7 7 even proportional to the square of an integer charge. Overall, even the leaing linear error term may be very ifferent from that preicte by Makov an Payne s corrections. Unfortunately, beyon noting that things get better on average for larger charge states an for non-relaxe calculations there seems to be no a priori metho for etermining whether the corrections will make things better or worse in a specific case. They are thus of little practical help, since they o not take into account enough of the specific behaviour of iniviual efects an materials. Inee, it seems unlikely that any such highly generalize moel for preiction of finite size error correction factors will ever fully succee. D. Calculating the ab initio ielectric constant. Makov an Payne preicte that the two leaing terms in the errors shoul be linear an cubic an our results show that they were correct in that respect. Their correcte formation energy takes the form E C :MP (L)=E :MP k (εl) k (εl) (6) where ε is the ielectric constant, k = q 2 α/2 an k = 2πqQ/. (q is the charge of the efect, α is the Maelung constant for the supercell an Q is the quarupole moment of the efect.) Comparing this with Eq 2 we fin a n = k n /ε. If we assume that the scheme is correct after all, then, q being known an Q having been calculate from the charge ensity, the only variable is the ielectric constant ε. We can then use the correction scheme together with the scaling results to erive an ab initio value of ε. This can be one twice for each efect, as shown in table I. We fin a wie scatter in the results, reflecting the wie variations in the effectiveness of the corrections. Inee, the values of ε obtaine are completely crazy when orer L corrections are use, as these are much more sensitive to short range effects an other errors. This, again reflects the fact that the situation escribe by Makov an Payne was highly iealize an ignores too many of the etails of the charge istribution aroun specific efects. Never-the-less, the average values ε from the orer L corrections are reasonably goo. The most physically correct approach is to use the unrelaxe formation energies only, (with no elastic effects); inee the values erive using relaxe values, thir orer corrections or Makov-Payne plus potential re-alignment make little sense (see I). From the first orer non-relaxe curves we obtain a ielectric constant of 7.5±9.. (The error bar is the stanar eviation from the average.) Numerical problems with the V P value have mae it rather unreliable, an very ifferent to the the others. Omitting it gives the perhaps more consistent value of.6±4.. These values compare to 9.6 in experiment or.7 calculate 2 using more traitional ab initio DFT-LDA techniques. 2 We thus obtain a fairly reasonable estimate of ε as a free sie-effect of performing accurate efect calculations - an interesting alternative to the traitional calculations methos. The uncertainty in the value obtaine is obviously rather large, but shoul improve if more efects in more charge states are inclue in the average. The orer L Makov-Payne corrections o improve using this new value for the ielectric constant, see columns 5 an of table I. However, some iniviual values still have errors of up to.-.4 ev, an there is still no way to know when the corrections are making things better an when they are making things worse, so from a practical point of view the Makov-Payne scheme is still not reliable enough for accurate calculations. V. THE BANDGAP PROBLEM We now turn to the ban gap problem an the issue of how to map calculate transfer levels onto the experimental gap. In practise several alternative - an essentially incompatible - methos are normally use. ) The Extene Gap Scheme: align the theoretical an experimental VBEs an start plotting efect transfer levels from there, continuing past the theoretical CBE until one reaches the experimental one. In the section of the thus plotte ban gap which lies above the theoretical CBE one automatically inclues calculations in which supposely localize, efectboun electrons are in reality locate in elocalize conuction ban states. The properties of the efect itself (transfer levels an local relaxe structure etc) re-enter primarily via hybriization of the conuction ban states with the localize efect states, though this hybriization becomes smaller as the supercell size grows. 2) The Scissors Scheme: align both the theoretical VBE an CBE with their experimental counterparts, performing a scissors operation to stretche out the theoretical gap states over the experimental gap. The manner in which this scissors operation shoul be one is not uniquely efine. A common option is to place acceptor levels the same istance above the experimental VBE that they appear above the theoretical VBE in calculations, an onor levels the same istance below the experimental CBE that they appear below the theoretical CBE in calculations. A better alternative is to actually examine the form an symmetry of the efect states themselves, an see whether they hybriize more strongly with host states near the CBE or with states near the VBE. If they hybriize most strongly with VBE states then they shoul be plotte the calculate istance above the (experimental) VBE, an if they hybriize most strongly with CBE states they shoul be place the calculate istance below the CBE. ) The Reference Level Scheme. The basis of this scheme is rather ifferent: the transfer level for the efect of interest is calculate, together with that of a similar reference efect for which the experimental value of the transfer level is well known, both one to the same level of accuracy. The ifference between the experimental an calculate levels of the known efect is subtracte from the calculate value of the new efect, so that the new level is only foun relative to the ol one. This iea is not without practical merit, but is very empirical. Its accuracy epens critically upon the choice of an appropriate reference efect, which must be as similar to the new one as possible, so it will not be iscusse further here. However, it has an occasionally use ab initio variant,

8 Transition Levels (ev) a) (Expt) (LDA) (GGA) (Expt) b) (Expt) (LDA) (Expt) Transition Levels (ev) e) f) / an /+ Levels -2/- an +/+2 Levels Transition Levels (ev) -/ an /+ Levels -2/- an +/+2 Levels c) ) - -/ an /+ Levels -2/- an +/+2 Levels Inverse supercell size (Å - ) (Top: #atoms in cell.) Transition Levels (ev) g) h) - -/ an /+ Levels -2/- an +/+2 Levels Inverse supercell size (Å - ) (Top: #atoms in cell.) FIG. : (Colour online.) Scaling of transfer levels for simple onors an acceptors calculate using: a) & b): neutral bulk as reference, with no corrections. c) & ): neutral bulk reference with potential corrections. e) & f) neutral bulk reference with ispersion corrections. g) & h) charge bulk as reference, with no corrections. Left panels: the opant levels themselves. Right panels: the ouble onor or ouble acceptor levels, which shoul lie outsie the bangap. Using LDA: S +/ P an S+2/+ P (, green), Si +/ In an Si+2/+ In (, re), Si /- P an Si-/-2 P (, blue), Zn/- In an Zn -/-2 In (, pink). Using GGA: S+/ P ( ) an Zn/- In ( ). In g) & h) the smaller symbols with ashe lines show the acceptor-type levels relative to the experimental CBE rather than the LDA one. On all panels: the otte lines are (in orer of increasing energy) the VBE an CBE from: GGA (panel a)), LDA an experiment. The error bars shown have been constructe as escribe in section III though the otte lines are omitte for clarity. which will be iscusse: 4) The Charge Bulk Reference Scheme: the reference state is not that of another efect, but is either the VBE or the CBE, meaning that a charge bulk total energy appears in Eq, rather than a neutral one. In principle this provies an alternative route aroun the ban gap problem. (Details below.) Obviously, none of these schemes is fully correct, since the LDA/GGA bangap problem is a funamental one, but the important practical question of which approach comes closer to giving the correct physical picture remains unanswere. In principle it can be answere by examining various experimentally well known efect levels. The exact location of most native efect levels is rather har to measure to a sufficiently high accuracy to answer this question, but many simple onor an acceptor levels are known very accurately. We will use the /- acceptor level of Zn In, which in experiment lies.5 ev from the VBE, an the +/ onor levels of S P an Si In, which experiment fins about.6 ev from the CBE. We will also a in the /- transfer level of Si P, which woul be a simple acceptor if Si In ha not been the more stable site for Si in InP. This gives us an example of a onor an an acceptor on each sublattice, so that all boning an ban hybriization possibilities are represente. Unfortunately, calculations of these levels in finite size supercells in the -2 atom range have never prouce a clear answer to the question, so we will use finite size scaling to correct for the supercell approximation errors. The results are shown in Fig a) using as calculate values, c) aing in potential corrections an e) using ispersion corrections. (Van er Walle an Neugebauer suggeste that ispersion corrections shoul still be correct for shallow transfer levels.) The results using as calculate transfer levels an potential correcte ones are very similar. The ispersion corrections, on the other han, are clearly completely incorrect: they place both acceptor an onor levels in the migap for most practical supercell sizes, whether the potential corrections are ae (not shown) or omitte (as here). Meanwhile, in Fig b), ) an f) we also show the secon onor/acceptor levels, Zn -/-2 In, S+2/+ P, etc., calculate using the same correction schemes. Since these levels are never observe experimentally they must lie outsie the ban gap. Hence the VBE shoul lie between the ouble onor levels (right panels) an the single acceptor levels (left panels). Sim-

9 9 ilarly the CBE shoul lie between the single onor an ouble acceptor levels. In practise, these pairs of levels more or less coincie, oubtless a result of the remaining limitations in the use of DFT-LDA for semiconuctor efects. Fortunately this still leaves us with a clear view of how to treat the ban gap problem. In the atom cell the onor (an ouble acceptor) levels lie roughly the experimental ban gap (. ev) above the VBE, while the acceptor (an ouble onor) levels lie on average a little below the VBE. However, coming to the larger cells the onor levels fall an the acceptor levels rise. Finite size scaling places the acceptor levels Zn /- In an Si/- P. an. ev above the VBE respectively, in rather goo agreement with experiment. The single onor (an ouble acceptor) levels all scale to the theoretical CBE. 22 To be more specific, transfer levels calculate using LDA scale to the LDA ban eges, while the Zn /- In an S+/ P transfer levels calculate using the Perew-Wang GGA 2 scale to the eges of the GGA ban gap - Fig a). (The GGA CBE lies.2 ev below the LDA one when the lattice parameter has been optimize.) Hence, scheme, the extening gap scheme, is seen to be the most appropriate when only reporting uncorrecte results from supercells of about 5- atoms. However, when the finite size errors are remove (by scaling or by some other technique) it becomes clear that the scissors scheme, scheme 2, is physically far more correct. Unscale LDA or GGA results in supercells over a few atoms woul also be best reporte using the scissors scheme. For intermeiate (- atom) supercells some kin of hybri approach is require. The result also inicates why the controversy has laste so long: ultimately the scissors scheme is correct, but this only shows up for very large supercells or with scaling. 24 We now return to scheme 4), the charge bulk reference. This amounts to replacing the terms ET C (no efect) an qε F in Eq by the term ET C(no efectq ), which is the total energy of the bulk supercell C with q extra electrons an neutralizing jellium. Fig g) & h) show the transfer levels calculate like this, with no corrections terms. The onor levels behave in the same way as using Eq in Fig a), but the acceptor levels are less straight-forwar. Using a charge bulk reference the levels come out relative to the CBE, rather than the VBE: they implicitly inclue the bangap, which must be subtracte off again to place them on the same overall scale as the onor levels. This gives a choice for the value for the bangap to subtract, which is how the potentially route aroun the ban gap problem enters. Namely, if the /- transfer level emerges as, say, -.5 ev, one coul place it.5 ev below the experimental CBE, thus plotting the transfer levels over the experimental bangap. (Small symbols an ashe scaling curves in Fig g & h).) For the single acceptor levels this clearly oes not work: although they lan accientally close to the VBE for smaller supercells they actually scale to the theoretical CBE, which is completely wrong. Instea, they shoul be place below the theoretically CBE (large symbols, soli curves), where they scale to the VBE. Unfortunately the opposite is true for the ouble acceptor levels. These work out roughly OK if plotte relative to the experimental CBE - lying outsie the theoretical ban gap, even if still insie the experimental one - but using the theoretical CBE, (as require for the single acceptors) they lie insie the theoretical ban gap, isagreeing with experiment. Hence using a charge bulk total energy as the reference for charge efect calculations is not even internally consistent an the scheme is thus funamentally incorrect. VI. CONCLUSIONS In this paper we have shown that finite size errors in the supercell approximation scale with the linear imension an with the volume of the supercell, an that finite size scaling the results from a series of supercells removes the supercell approximation errors, leaving accurate information on isolate semiconuctor efects, without the nee for corrections. We also obtain error bars efining the uncertainly on the results obtaine, an as far as we are aware this is the only metho which is able to remove these errors in a controlle manner with efine uncertainty. We have emonstrate this using a variety of ifferent types of efects with charge states ranging from - to + an fin that it is possible to reuce formation energy errors from the.-2 or so ev range of practical supercells own to the.-. ev range or below - oubtless much lower if still larger supercells are use. By construction, errors on this scale also occur if only the,, an 26 atom supercells are use. We then use the scale results for the first full reliability test of three correction schemes. We foun that ispersion corrections are incorrect an Makov-Payne corrections are poor (with both the experimental an LDA ielectric constants,) though they i allow us to obtain a reasonable ab initio LDA ielectric constant of ε =.6±4. for InP. On the other han, the potential re-alignment scheme was foun to be remarkably successful, removing much of the electrostatic efect-efect error as well, to leave average resiual errors of about. ev, from single calculations with supercells in the -52 atom range. This obviously raises the question of why the potential realignment scheme is so successful, when it oes not set out to correct efect-image interaction errors at all! The fact that it prouce similar (but more reliable) corrections to the Makov- Payne scheme suggests that it is some how ealing with the electrostatic errors anyway. We note in section IV A that the scheme assumes that the real-space potential at some point in the cell far from the efect is bulk-like, even though for practical cell sizes it is not bulk-like at all. The resulting aitional shift in this local real-space potential reflects the effects of the electrostatic efect-image interactions. Doing the potential re-alignment in this way therefore fails to properly correct the mismatch in the zeros of the energy scales between the bulk an efect cells, but the error in the re-alignment more or less corrects for the electrostatic errors arising from the PBCs. Finally, we have given the long awaite answer to the ilemma of how best to map LDA an GGA calculate efect transfer levels onto the experimental gap, an inicate why the issue was previously so har to settle. The key result is

10 that the scissors metho is physically more correct, though the extene gap scheme is best when reporting results from single supercells on the -2 atom scale without finite size corrections. For uncorrecte results from supercells over a few atoms the scissors metho is best, with a hybri metho neee in between. The best, of course, is to use the scissors scheme, with either scale or correcte results, regarless of supercell size. The apparent success of the essentially incorrect extene gap scheme for uncorrecte results in manageably size supercells is the basic reason for the ebate lasting so long. This leas to another issue which is also apparent from our results: It is very angerous to report calculations from single supercells without trying to estimate the errors containe. Quantitatively these can be -2 ev or more, but we have cases here where conclusions are even qualitatively wrong in supercells up to an even incluing the 52 atom cell. For example 25, comparing these results for P +2 In with those5 for P + In we fin that even at the CBE, the +2 charge state appears more stable than the + in all four supercells. The fact that it is actually.9 ev less stable only emerges when the finite size errors are remove, either by scaling or (leaving resiual errors from.5-. ev) by using potential realignment. Similarly, at the VBE, V - In an In+ i(p) are more stable than V+ In an In+ i(p), respectively, in both the an 26 atom supercells. The correct stability orer only appears in the 52 atom cell, (neutrals more stable by.2 an.6 ev respectively,) an the correct orer of magnitue for the ifference (.6 an.7 ev) is only obtaine by scaling. Another striking example is that, accoring to LDA in cells 52 atoms, p-type Zn ope InP - a material upon which much of current optoelectronics epens - shoul not be p-type at all! For the roughly stoiciometric conitions of, say, Czochralski growth, LDA in the an 26 atom cells places Zn not as the shallow acceptor Zn In but as the interstitial Zn i(p), where it is a eep ouble onor. Even in the 52 atom cell the two are egenerate, suggesting at best semi-insulating material. Accoring to this Zn is only an acceptor for InP grown uner strongly non-equilibrium conitions, such as with molecular beam epitaxy. However, Zn is a p-type opant, even grown from the melt, an this fact can be preicte using LDA, but only for supercells of the orer of s of atoms, or if the supercell size errors are remove - by scaling or otherwise. Doing this using potential realignment works for all these examples: even in the atom supercell reasonable results can be obtaine. However, caution shoul still be use: Firstly, for our examples it worke much better for the formation energies than for the shallow opant transfer levels. Seconly, potential re-alignment makes P + In (correctly) more stable than P +2 In at the CBE in all but the atom supercell, but if those correcte results are then scale the wrong answer returns, with P +2 In more stable than P+ In because of the large error bars foun when scaling potential re-aligne energies. In short, it is essential, to estimate an report the finite size errors for each specific case when reporting supercell efect calculations. This is often omitte, or is only one using the unreliable Makov-Payne scheme. When it is one this is usually by oing most calculations in a cell of, say, 5-2 atoms, an then repeating a few of them in a slightly larger cell. If the calculate results o not change much then they are consiere converge. However, even this shoul be one with extreme caution. Even with only a linear contribution, the finite size errors in the atom supercell are three times the ifference between the an 26 atom cell energies, the 26 atom cell errors are still twice this estimate. Even the errors in the 52 atom cell are three times the ifference between the 26 an 52 atom energies. So, how shoul finite size errors within the supercell approximation be treate? Ieally, using finite size scaling of otherwise uncorrecte energies. This is, of course, costly in both human an computer time. The best alternative is simply to use potential realignment in as large a supercell as time an resources permit. However, one shoul be aware that a) this oes not help the elastic errors, b) potential realignment shoul not be combine with finite size scaling an c) there is no way to estimate the remaining errors or the reliability of the results. For our examples, the average errors using this metho are. ev, but with some examples up to.2 ev, an nothing to say that much larger errors will never occur. If the conclusions being rawn from a calculation are not aversely affecte by uncontrolle errors of.-.2+ ev then this metho is reasonably goo. Otherwise, the only truly reliable metho of controlling the errors in the supercell approximation, an efining the uncertainly in the results, is finite size scaling. The calculations in this paper were performe at Uppsala University an at the Parallel Computing Centre (PDC) Stockholm, Sween. The authors woul also like to thank the Göran Gustafsson Founation, the Sweish Founation for Strategic Research (SSF) an the Sweish Research Council (VR) for financial support. Present aress: Materials Chemistry, Box 5, SE-752 Uppsala, Sween. aress: Christopher.Castleton@mkem.uu.se. W. Kohn an L. Sham Phys. Rev. 4, A (965) 2 M.C.Payne, M.P.Teter, D.C.Allan, T.A.Arias an J.D.Joannopoulos Rev. Mo. Phys., 45 (992) M.Leslie an M.J.Gillian J. Phys.C: Soli State Phys., 97 (95) 4 C.W.M. Castleton an S. Mirbt Physica B 4-42, 47 (2) 5 C.W.M. Castleton an S. Mirbt Phys. Rev. B 7, 9522 (24) 6 P.A. Schultz Phys Rev Lett (2); U.Gerstmann, P.Deák, R.Rurali, B.Arai, Th.Frauenheim an H.Overhof Physica B 4-42, 9 (2); B.Arai, P.Deák, A.Gali, N.T.Son an E.Janzén Phys Rev B 69, 222 (24) 7 L.N. Kantorovich Phys. Rev. B 6, 5476 (999); L.N. Kantorovich an I.I.Tupitsyn J. Phys.:Conens. Matter, 659 (999); P.A. Schultz Phys Rev B 6, 55 (999); H. Nozaki an S. Itoh Phys. Rev. E 62, 9 (2); A.Castro, A.Rubio an M.J.Stott Can. J. Phys., 5 (2)