MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976901226 · doi:10.1135/cccc20030554

Externally Corrected Coupled-Cluster Approaches: Energy versus Amplitude Corrected CCSD

2003· article· en· W1976901226 on OpenAlexaff
Josef Paldus, Xiangzhu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCollection of Czechoslovak Chemical Communications · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoupled clusterWave functionAmplitudeFunction (biology)ChemistryPotential energyElectronic correlationAtomic physicsPhysicsStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The externally corrected coupled-cluster methods with singles and doubles (ecCCSD), which exploit some independently available wave function as a source of higher-than-pair clusters, are considered. The focus is on methods that employ a modest-size multireference (MR) configuration interaction (with singles and doubles, CISD) wave function as the external source. Both the amplitude- and energy-corrected CCSD methods are employed, the former correcting the standard single reference (SR) CCSD equations for triples and quadruples, while the latter accounts for the nondynamic correlation effects when evaluating the energy by employing the MR CISD wave function in lieu of the single determinantal (usually Hartree-Fock) reference in the asymmetric energy formula. The performance and relationship of both types of approaches is illustrated by computing the rotational and vibrational energy levels using the potential generated by these various methods and by comparing the calculated spectra with the experimental ones for the simplest first-row hydride, namely the LiH molecule. A special attention is paid to the role of core-correlation effects, in which case we also consider the HF molecule.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollection of Czechoslovak Chemical CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207