13.62
       $ W\rightarrow W $          12.28        13.66
      $ K \rightarrow K $          12.65        13.44
       Indirect bandgaps                      
     $W\rightarrow\Gamma $          6.90        7.83
       $W\rightarrow X $           12.50        13.55
       $W\rightarrow L  $          11.56        12.54
       $W\rightarrow K $           12.47        13.44
   VB width (F 2*s* - F 2*p*)      22.47        22.99

  : \[tab:mygap\]Transition energies between lowest CB and highest VB at high symmetric points, and valence bandwidth within the two GW schemes. All data are expressed in eV.

It is clear from Table \[table:2\] and from Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\] that after the computational procedure adopted here an excellent agreement has been obtained with available experiments.[@orlowski; @raisin] The other point is that for $CdF_{2}$, $G_{0}W_{0}$ is not sufficient and a self-consistent procedure, GW based, has to be considered in addition. Referring to Fig. \[fig:1\] the main discrepancies between the different GW methods appear in the conduction bands. This point is also clear from the DOSs which are nearly overlapping for the VB energy region, as shown in Figs. \[fig:1\] and \[fig:2\].

Therefore, the electronic structure of $CdF_{2}$, within the PBEsol, $G_{0}W_{0}$, and scQP-GW schemes, shows an indirect gap at $W-\Gamma$ of 7.83 eV (expt. 7.8 eV[@orlowski]) and a larger direct gap at $\Gamma$ of 8.58 eV (expt. 