MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994450066 · doi:10.1063/1.4905664

A pure-sampling quantum Monte Carlo algorithm

2015· article· en· W1994450066 on OpenAlexaff
Egor Ospadov, Stuart M. Rothstein

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrapolationMonte Carlo methodQuantum Monte CarloSampling (signal processing)PopulationImportance samplingAlgorithmStatistical physicsMoment (physics)MathematicsComputer sciencePhysicsStatisticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of pure-sampling quantum Monte Carlo is to calculate physical properties that are independent of the importance sampling function being employed in the calculation, save for the mismatch of its nodal hypersurface with that of the exact wave function. To achieve this objective, we report a pure-sampling algorithm that combines features of forward walking methods of pure-sampling and reptation quantum Monte Carlo (RQMC). The new algorithm accurately samples properties from the mixed and pure distributions simultaneously in runs performed at a single set of time-steps, over which extrapolation to zero time-step is performed. In a detailed comparison, we found RQMC to be less efficient. It requires different sets of time-steps to accurately determine the energy and other properties, such as the dipole moment. We implement our algorithm by systematically increasing an algorithmic parameter until the properties converge to statistically equivalent values. As a proof in principle, we calculated the fixed-node energy, static α polarizability, and other one-electron expectation values for the ground-states of LiH and water molecules. These quantities are free from importance sampling bias, population control bias, time-step bias, extrapolation-model bias, and the finite-field approximation. We found excellent agreement with the accepted values for the energy and a variety of other properties for those systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207