CCSD(T) calculations of confined systems: In-crystal polarizabilities of F−, Cl−, O2 −, and S2 −
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore dipole polarizabilities of the singly and doubly charged anions F(-), Cl(-), O(2-), and S(2-) in an external, harmonic oscillator (HO) confining potential ∑(i)½ω(2)r(i)(2). We find that in contrast to F(-) and Cl(-) those for O(2-) and S(2-) are unrealistically high due to the instability of the corresponding restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) solutions. Yet, already a relatively weak HO confining potential stabilizes their RHF solutions and eliminates any possible broken-symmetry solutions. The coupled-cluster theory with single, double and noniterative triple excitations (CCSD(T)) then yields considerably reduced polarizabilities for O(2-) and S(2-) relative to their unconfined values. We showed that polarizabilities of O(2-) and S(2-) are more sensitive to the strength of a confinement potential than are those for F(-) and Cl(-). This enables us to relate the confining parameter ω with the known experimental polarizabilities for selected crystals (our "training set") and to find a specific confining parameter ω for which the CCSD(T) polarizability equals the experimental in-crystal polarizability of an anion in the training set. The latter may then be used as an alternative approach for determining the in-crystal polarizabilities of anions by exploiting the fact that the characteristic ω values depend linearly on the ionic radius of a cation participating in specific crystals containing these anions. Using this method we then calculate the isotropic dipole polarizabilities for F(-), Cl(-), O(2-), and S(2-) embedded in the LiF, LiCl, NaF, NaCl, KF, KCl, ZnO, ZnS, MgO, MgS, CaO, CaS, SrO, SrS, BaO, BaS, and other crystals containing halogen, oxygen, or sulphur anions. We compare our results with those obtained via alternative models of the in-crystal anionic polarizabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".