MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003061759 · doi:10.1063/1.4764099

Solving the vibrational Schrödinger equation using bases pruned to include strongly coupled functions and compatible quadratures

2012· article· en· W2003061759 on OpenAlexafffund
Gustavo Avila, Tucker Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBasis functionQuadrature (astronomy)Basis (linear algebra)Schrödinger equationMathematicsGauss–Laguerre quadratureNumerical integrationApplied mathematicsIntegral equationNyström methodMathematical analysisGauss–Kronrod quadrature formulaPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present new basis pruning schemes and compatible quadrature grids for solving the vibrational Schrödinger equation. The new basis is designed to include the product basis functions coupled by the largest terms in the potential and important for computing low-lying vibrational levels. To solve the vibrational Schrödinger equation without approximating the potential, one must use quadrature to compute potential matrix elements. For a molecule with more than five atoms, the use of iterative methods is imperative, due to the size of the basis and the quadrature grid. When using iterative methods in conjunction with quadrature, it is important to evaluate matrix-vector products by doing sums sequentially. This is only possible if both the basis and the grid have structure. Although it is designed to include only functions coupled by the largest terms in the potential, the new basis and also the quadrature for doing integrals with the basis have enough structure to make efficient matrix-vector products possible. When results obtained with a multimode approximation to the potential are accurate enough, full-dimensional quadrature is not necessary. Using the quadrature methods of this paper, we evaluate the accuracy of calculations made by making multimode approximations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations71
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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