Test set for materials science and engineering with user-friendly graphic tools for error analysis: Systematic benchmark of the numerical and intrinsic errors in state-of-the-art electronic-structure approximations

Understanding the applicability and limitations of electronic-structure methods needs careful and efficient comparison with accurate reference data. Knowledge of the quality and errors of electronic-structure calculations is crucial to advanced method development, high-throughput computations, and data analyses. In this paper, we present a test set for computational materials science and engineering (MSE), that aims to provide accurate and easily accessible crystal properties for a hierarchy of exchange-correlation approximations, ranging from the well-established mean-field approximations to the state-of-the-art methods of many-body perturbation theory. We consider cohesive energy, lattice constant and bulk modulus as representatives for the first- and second-row elements and their binaries with cubic crystal structures and various bonding characters. A strong effort is made to push the borders of numerical accuracy for cohesive properties as calculated using the local-density approximation (LDA), several generalized gradient approximations (GGAs), meta-GGAs and hybrids in \textit{all-electron} resolution, and the second-order M\o{}ller-Plesset perturbation theory (MP2) and the random-phase approximation (RPA) with frozen-core approximation based on \textit{all-electron} Hartree-Fock, PBE and/or PBE0 references. This results in over 10,000 calculations, which record a comprehensive convergence test with respect to numerical parameters for a wide range of electronic structure methods within the numerical atom-centered orbital framework. As an indispensable part of the MSE test set, a web site is established \href{http://mse.fhi-berlin.mpg.de}{\texttt{http://mse.fhi-berlin.mpg.de}}. This not only allows for easy access to all reference data but also provides user-friendly graphical tools for post-processing error analysis.
Comment: 18 pages, 7 figures