Skip to content

SOF-8043: Gr/Ni(111) registry and separation tutorial - #400

Draft
VsevolodX wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
feature/SOF-8043
Draft

SOF-8043: Gr/Ni(111) registry and separation tutorial#400
VsevolodX wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
feature/SOF-8043

Conversation

@VsevolodX

@VsevolodX VsevolodX commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Tutorial page for the simulation notebook in mat3ra/api-examples#364SOF-8043, epic SOF-7994.

Follows the shape established by the twisted-MoS₂ simulation page: front matter with the M-CODE tag, the manuscript in a !!!note block citing [@Dahal2014] (key already present in references.bib), the structure tutorial linked as a prerequisite, what is compared and what deliberately is not, a settings table against the manuscript's, step-by-step instructions, and the JupyterLite embed.

Registered in mkdocs.yml and mkdocs-guide.yml next to the structure page, and the index guide's Dahal row now links the simulation page instead of reading "Coming Soon".

Two points the page makes explicitly, because both are easy to get wrong:

  • a chemisorbing registry has two energy minima, so registries must be compared each at its own minimum rather than at a shared height;
  • absolute adsorption energies are not comparable here (the manuscript's are dispersion-corrected beyond semi-local DFT), while the registry ordering and the separations are.

Draft alongside the api-examples PR, whose DFT tier is blocked on a local messaging fault (see that PR).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Companion page for the simulation notebook added in api-examples: what the
manuscript (Dahal & Batzill, Nanoscale 6, 2548 (2014)) reports about the
high-symmetry registries of graphene on Ni(111), which quantities are
comparable across methods and which are not, the two-tier recipe
(MACE-MP + D3 survey, then Total Energy jobs per registry), and the
computational settings next to the manuscript's.

Registered in both navs and linked from the index guide's Dahal row.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@netlify

netlify Bot commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Deploy Preview for mat3ra-documentation ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 52d2534
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/mat3ra-documentation/deploys/6a978f96e9c0a8000825a3cc
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-400--mat3ra-documentation.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
🤖 Make changes Run an agent on this branch

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

VsevolodX and others added 4 commits September 1, 2026 10:44
The settings table documented the combination that inverts the result: MACE
medium where the notebook uses large, and vdw_corr = "d3_grimme" where the
notebook sets "grimme-d3". The medium model at float32 misses the shallow
chemisorbed minimum entirely and reports every registry as physisorbed, so
the page now says which model is required and why.

Covers all four of the review's Fig. 1 registries under its own names, with
the figure shown, and states plainly what is not claimed: which of the two
atop registries is lowest is below the resolution of either method here.

Documents the two same-cell reference jobs and the adsorption energy they
produce.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The bridge registry is a C-C bond straddling a first-layer Ni, not a carbon
on the Ni-Ni midpoint. Cutoffs follow the notebook at 40/320 Ry. The
adsorption-energy references are described as off by default, and what
their same-cell arrangement does and does not cancel is stated plainly.

Job counts now match the notebook: four registries, and the two reference
jobs add to whatever is active rather than being part of a default run.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Cutoffs corrected to the 40 / 200 Ry pair GBRV publishes for its ultrasoft
set. The settings section now says, for every value, whether it is a
platform default, the pseudopotential set's published value, or something
this system's physics requires — including what the SCF defaults did on a
first attempt and which three changes address it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The page now leads with Lahiri et al. Table 1 as the quantitative target,
states the published recipe (LDA, spin-polarized, relaxation with the
bottom substrate layers fixed) and why relaxation is not optional, explains
that the fast tier is expected to fail the energetic targets and why that
is the physics working as documented, and lists the divergences from the
paper in one place.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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 this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant