Predicting phonon properties and thermal conductivity from anharmonic lattice dynamics calculations and molecular dynamics simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two methods for predicting phonon frequencies and relaxation times are presented. The first is based on quasiharmonic and anharmonic lattice dynamics calculations, and the second is based on a combination of quasiharmonic lattice dynamics calculations and molecular dynamics simulations. These phonon properties are then used with the Boltzmann transport equation under the relaxation-time approximation to predict the lattice thermal conductivity. The validity of the low-temperature assumptions made in the lattice dynamics framework are assessed by comparing to thermal conductivities predicted by the Green-Kubo and direct molecular dynamics methods for a test system of Lennard-Jones argon. The predictions of all four methods are in agreement at low temperature (20 K). At temperatures of 40 K (half the Debye temperature of Lennard-Jones argon) and below, the thermal-conductivity predictions from the two methods that use lattice dynamics calculations are within about 30% of those made using the more accurate Green-Kubo and direct molecular dynamics methods. The thermal-conductivity predictions using the lattice dynamics techniques become inaccurate at high temperature (above 40 K) due to the approximations inherent in the lattice dynamics framework. We apply the results to assess the validity of (i) the isotropic approximation in modeling thermal transport and (ii) the common assertion that low-frequency phonons dominate thermal transport. Lastly, we suggest approximations that can be made within the lattice dynamics framework that allow the thermal conductivity of Lennard-Jones argon to be estimated using two orders of magnitude less computing effort than the Green-Kubo or direct molecular dynamics methods.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".