Calculation of zero-field splitting parameters: Comparison of a two-component noncolinear spin-density-functional method and a one-component perturbational approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two different sets of approaches for the density-functional calculation of the spin-orbit contributions to zero-field splitting (ZFS) parameters of high-spin systems have been implemented within the same quantum chemistry code ReSpect and have been validated and compared for a series of model systems. The first approach includes spin-orbit coupling variationally in a two-component calculation, using either an all-electron Douglas-Kroll-Hess ansatz or two-component relativistic pseudopotentials. The ZFS parameters are computed directly from energy differences between different relativistic states. Additionally, an approximate second-order perturbation theory approach has been implemented, based on nonrelativistic or scalar relativistic wave functions. For a series of group 16 triplet diatomics and for the octet GdH3 molecules, two-component density functional calculations underestimate the zero-field splitting D systematically by a factor of 2. This may be rationalized readily by the incomplete description of states with absolute value MJ < J by a single-determinantal wave function built from two-component spinors. In the case of two 3d transition metal complexes and for GdH3, the results depend furthermore sensitively on exchange-correlation functional. Results of the alternative one-component approach agree strikingly with the two-component data for systems with small spin-orbit effects and start to deviate from them only for heavier systems with large spin-orbit effects. These results have fundamental implications for the achievable accuracy of one-component density-functional approaches used widely to compute ZFS parameters in the field of molecular magnetism. Possible refinements of both one-and two-component approaches are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".