FIX: Improve averaging of optical spectra #150
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Currently, optical properties (absorption, refractive index, loss, etc) are averaged using only the trace of the dielectric tensor. I've refactored the implementation to instead average the eigenvalues of the respective tensors. I think this should improve the averaged optical properties for non-orthogonal lattices, as these can contain off diagonal elements of the dielectric tensor.
The new implementation now does all the property calculations on the tensors and only averages at the last minute. I've also added support for extracting the full tensor, eigenvalues, and trace, rather than just averaged or not-averaged.
Note that I had to edit the test data for Ge. Strangely, this calculation has off diagonal dielectric components even though it is in the cubic space group... Perhaps the primitive cell is not aligned with the cartesian axes correctly.
@ajjackson does this look reasonable?