Comment on "Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem"
Shadi Qulaghasi, Giovanni B. Bachelet

TL;DR
This paper identifies and corrects two misprints in a widely used tight-binding table from a seminal 1950s paper, aiming to improve the accuracy of related computational methods.
Contribution
It provides specific corrections to a classical tight-binding table, enhancing the reliability of this foundational resource.
Findings
Two misprints in the Slater-Koster table are corrected.
The corrections improve the accuracy of tight-binding calculations.
The paper clarifies the impact of these misprints on related computational work.
Abstract
In this comment we report on two misprints of a classical and still widely used tight-binding table contained in a seminal, 65-years-old paper by Slater and Koster, and suggest the corresponding corrections.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsScientific Research and Discoveries
Comment on “Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem”
Shadi Qulaghasi
Giovanni B. Bachelet
Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, 00185 Roma, Italy
(March 16, 2024)
Abstract
We report on two misprints in one of the classical, widely-used tight-binding tables contained in the seminal, 65-years-old paper by Slater and Koster, Slater and Koster (2015) and suggest the corresponding corrections.
pacs:
71.20.-b
Perhaps the simplest model of one-electron states in solids is a tight-binding hamiltonian with a few orbitals per atom. As early as 1929, Bloch cast the linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) as an illustration of his theorem in the limit of “strongly bound electrons”; Bloch (1929) 25 years later, Slater and Koster gave a key contribution to the diffusion of this method by (i) suggesting the interpretation of the matrix elements between atomic orbitals as adjustable parameters of a model hamiltonian, (ii) proposing their two-center approximation, and (iii) publishing their tabulation for orbitals in cubic crystals.Slater and Koster (2015)
We found two misprints in their Table III, which contains the hamiltonian matrix elements between Bloch sums of atomic orbitals as a function of for a simple-cubic lattice. They are based on hamiltonian matrix elements between orbitals sitting on nearest, second-nearest, and third-nearest neighboring atoms, calculated according to the two-center approximation; analogous matrix elements between Bloch sums may be immediately deduced from this table for the fcc, bcc, and diamond lattices, too.
Following the Slater-Koster notation (subscripts 1, 2, 3 for hamiltonian matrix elements involving nearest, second-nearest, and third-nearest neighbors):
- •
in the third row of Table III, within the sum which defines the matrix element () between two Bloch sums of and orbitals, the first addend should be and not , since this bond derives from and orbitals and not from orbitals;
- •
in the second-to-last row of Table III, within the sum which defines the term (), the () parameter in one of its addends has no subscript, but it should have a 2; the correct form of the corresponding addend therefore reads .
Acknowledgements.
We thank L. Boeri for useful conversations. G.B.B. acknowledges support from Fondo Ateneo-Sapienza 2017.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
