Exponential representation in the Coulomb three-body problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exponential representation in the Coulomb three-body problem is considered. It is shown that the exponential variational expansion in relative coordinates r 32 , r 31 and r 21 has a number of advantages for the bound state calculations in Coulomb three-body systems. Moreover, it appears that the exponential (or Laplace–Fourier) representation of the Coulomb three-body problem is an optimal approach to analyse and solve various three-body problems. The optimization of nonlinear parameters in the trial wavefunctions is also considered. The developed methods are used to determine the highly accurate ground 1 1 S( L = 0)-state energies and other bound state properties for a number of He-like two-electron ions (Li + , Be 2+ , B 3+ , C 4+ , N 5+ , O 6+ , F 7+ and Ne 8+ ). To represent the ground state energies of these He-like ions we apply the Z −1 expansion. The asymptotic form of the ground state wavefunctions at large electron–nuclear distances for the He-like ions is briefly discussed. Considered hypervirial theorems are of great interest for these ions, since they allow one to obtain some useful relations between different expectation values. The generalization of the exponential variational expansion in relative coordinates to the four-body non-relativistic systems is also considered.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".