Relativistic-Consistent Electron Densities of the Coinage Metal Clusters M<sub>2</sub>, M<sub>4</sub>, M<sub>4</sub><sup>2–</sup>, and M<sub>4</sub>Na<sub>2</sub>(M = Cu, Ag, Au): A QTAIM Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We employ second-order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory level in combination with recently developed pseudopotential-based correlation consistent basis sets to obtain accurate relativistic-consistent electron densities for small coinage metal clusters. Using calculated electron densities, we employ Bader's quantum theory of atoms in molecules (QTAIM) to gain insights into the nature of metal-metal bonding in the clusters M(2), M(4), M(4)(2-), and M(4)Na(2) (M = Cu, Ag, Au). For the simplest case of the metal dimer, M(2), we correlate the strength of the metal-metal bond with the value of the electron density at the bond critical point, the total energy density at the bond critical point, the sharing (delocalization) index, and the values of the two principle negative curvatures. We then consider changes to the metal-metal bonding and charge density distribution upon the addition of two metal atoms to form the metal tetramer, M(4), and then followed by the addition of an electron pair to form M(4)(2-) and finally followed by the addition of two alkali metal (sodium) ions to form M(4)Na(2). Using topological properties of the electron density, we present evidence for the existence of σ-aromaticity in Au(4)(2-). We also report the existence of two non-nuclear attractors in the molecular graph of Cu(4)(2-) and large negative charge accumulation in the nonbonded Cu basins of this cluster.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".