Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigates mathematical details and computational aspects of Metropolis-Hastings reptation quantum Monte Carlo and its variants, in addition to the Bounce method and its variants. The issues that concern us include the sensitivity of these algorithms' target densities to the position of the trial electron density along the reptile, time-reversal symmetry of the propagators, and the length of the reptile. \n \nWe calculate the ground-state energy and one-electron properties of LiH at its equilibrium geometry for all these algorithms. The importance sampling is performed with a single-determinant large Slater-type orbitals (STO) basis set. The computer codes were written to exploit the efficiencies engineered into modern, high-performance computing software. Using the Bounce method in the calculation of non-energy-related properties, those represented by operators that do not commute with the Hamiltonian, is a novel work. \n \nWe found that the unmodified Bounce gives good ground state energy and very good one-electron properties. We attribute this to its favourable time-reversal symmetry in its target density's Green's functions. Breaking this symmetry gives poorer results. Use of a short reptile in the Bounce method does not alter the quality of the results. This suggests that in future applications one can use a shorter reptile to cut down the computational time dramatically.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".