New exchange-Coulomb N2–Ar potential-energy surface and its comparison with other recent N2–Ar potential-energy surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliability of five N2-Ar potential-energy surfaces in representing the N2-Ar interaction has been investigated by comparing their abilities to reproduce a variety of experimental results, including interaction second viral coefficients, bulk transport properties, relaxation phenomena, differential scattering cross sections, and the microwave and infrared spectra of the van der Waals complexes. Four of the surfaces are the result of high-level ab initio quantal calculations; one of them utilized fine tuning by fitting to microwave data. To date, these four potential-energy surfaces have only been tested against experimental microwave data. The fifth potential-energy surface, based upon the exchange-Coulomb potential-energy model for the interaction of closed-shell species, is developed herein: it is a combination of a damped dispersion energy series and ab initio calculations of the Heitler-London interaction energy, and has adjustable parameters determined by requiring essentially simultaneous agreement with selected quality interaction second viral coefficient and microwave data. Comparisons are also made with the predictions of three other very good literature potential-energy surfaces, including the precursor of the new exchange-Coulomb potential-energy surface developed here. Based upon an analysis of a large body of information, the new exchange-Coulomb and microwave-tuned ab initio potential-energy surfaces provide the best representations of the N2-Ar interaction; nevertheless, the other potential-energy surfaces examined still have considerable merit with respect to the prediction of specific properties of the N2-Ar van der Waals complex. Of the two recommended surfaces, the new exchange-Coulomb surface is preferred on balance due to its superior predictions of the effective cross sections related to various relaxation phenomena, and to its reliable, and relatively simple, representation of the long-range part of the potential-energy surface. Moreover, the flexibility still inherent in the exchange-Coulomb potential form can be further exploited, if required, in future studies of the N2-Ar interaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".