Reactivity indicators for degenerate states in the density-functional theoretic chemical reactivity theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density-functional-theory-based chemical reactivity indicators are formulated for degenerate and near-degenerate ground states. For degenerate states, the functional derivatives of the energy with respect to the external potential do not exist, and must be replaced by the weaker concept of functional variation. The resultant reactivity indicators depend on the specific perturbation. Because it is sometimes impractical to compute reactivity indicators for a specific perturbation, we consider two special cases: point-charge perturbations and Dirac delta function perturbations. The Dirac delta function perturbations provide upper bounds on the chemical reactivity. Reactivity indicators using the common used "average of degenerate states approximation" for degenerate states provide a lower bound on the chemical reactivity. Unfortunately, this lower bound is often extremely weak. Approximate formulas for the reactivity indicators within the frontier-molecular-orbital approximation and special cases (two or three degenerate spatial orbitals) are presented in the supplementary material. One remarkable feature that arises in the frontier molecular orbital approximation, and presumably also in the exact theory, is that removing electrons sometimes causes the electron density to increase at the location of a negative (attractive) Dirac delta function perturbation. That is, the energetic response to a reduction in the external potential can increase even when the number of electrons decreases.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".