MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005701016 · doi:10.1139/v04-014

Methods for calculating vibrational energy levels

2004· article· en· W2005701016 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tucker Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanczos resamplingLanczos algorithmHamiltonian (control theory)ChemistryBasis setBasis (linear algebra)Basis functionHamiltonian matrixMatrix (chemical analysis)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsComputational chemistryStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsPhysicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsSymmetric matrixGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews new methods for computing vibrational energy levels of small polyatomic molecules. The principal impediment to the calculation of energy levels is the size of the required basis set. If one uses a product basis the Hamiltonian matrix for a four-atom molecule is too large to store in core memory. We discuss iterative methods that enable one to use a product basis to compute energy levels (and spectra) without storing a Hamiltonian matrix. Despite the advantages of iterative methods it is not possible, using product basis functions, to calculate vibrational spectra of molecules with more than four atoms. A very recent method combining contracted basis functions and the Lanczos algorithm with which vibrational energy levels of methane have been computed is described. New ideas, based on exploiting preconditioning, for reducing the number of matrix-vector products required to converge energy levels of interest are also summarized.Key words: vibrational energy levels, kinetic energy operators, Lanczos algorithm, contracted basis functions, preconditioning.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207