Ordering and segregation in<i>X</i>Pt (<i>X</i>=V, Cu, and Au) random alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the phase stability and the ordering tendencies of some Pt-based fcc random alloys using the generalized perturbation method (GPM) implemented in the linear muffin-tin orbitals (LMTO) basis. The reference medium for the GPM is chosen as the completely disordered state of the alloy and its electronic structure is described in the coherent potential approximation (CPA). Ordering tendencies and phase stability are examined via effective pair interactions and their lattice Fourier transforms. Relativistic effects on the ground state cohesive properties and the ordering tendencies are determined by carrying out nonrelativistic and fully relativistic (in some cases also scalar-relativistic) LMTO-CPA calculations. In all cases considered, namely $X\mathrm{Pt}$ with $X=\mathrm{V},$ Cu, and Au, the correct ordering tendency is obtained. The ordering tendency is found to be somewhat overestimated in the GPM. Relativistic effects are found to be most prominent in AuPt, where the nonrelativistic LMTO-CPA-GPM description shows a tendency towards ${L1}_{1}$ ordering and the correct result, i.e., phase segregation, is obtained only in the fully relativistic description. The sensitivity of the ordering tendency to factors such as lattice relaxation and volume per atom is examined briefly. Finally, the effect on the phase stability of adding a third component, such as V or Au to CuPt alloy, is studied by extending the formalism to the case of a ternary alloy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".