How to choose one-dimensional basis functions so that a very efficient multidimensional basis may be extracted from a direct product of the one-dimensional functions: Energy levels of coupled systems with as many as 16 coordinates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we propose a scheme for choosing basis functions for quantum dynamics calculations. Direct product bases are frequently used. The number of direct product functions required to converge a spectrum, compute a rate constant, etc., is so large that direct product calculations are impossible for molecules or reacting systems with more than four atoms. It is common to extract a smaller working basis from a huge direct product basis by removing some of the product functions. We advocate a build and prune strategy of this type. The one-dimensional (1D) functions from which we build the direct product basis are chosen to satisfy two conditions: (1) they nearly diagonalize the full Hamiltonian matrix; (2) they minimize off-diagonal matrix elements that couple basis functions with diagonal elements close to those of the energy levels we wish to compute. By imposing these conditions we increase the number of product functions that can be removed from the multidimensional basis without degrading the accuracy of computed energy levels. Two basic types of 1D basis functions are in common use: eigenfunctions of 1D Hamiltonians and discrete variable representation (DVR) functions. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The 1D functions we propose are intermediate between the 1D eigenfunction functions and the DVR functions. If the coupling is very weak, they are very nearly 1D eigenfunction functions. As the strength of the coupling is increased they resemble more closely DVR functions. We assess the usefulness of our basis by applying it to model 6D, 8D, and 16D Hamiltonians with various coupling strengths. We find approximately linear scaling.
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".