MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007564954 · doi:10.1002/jcc.21941

Implementation of renormalized excitonic method at <i>ab initio</i> level

2011· article· en· W2007564954 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Paul Malrieu, Haibo Ma, Jing Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAb initioExcited stateDelocalized electronGround stateWave functionBasis setFull configuration interactionAb initio quantum chemistry methodsConfiguration interactionPhysicsBasis (linear algebra)ChemistryAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The renormalized excitonic method [Hajj et al., Phys Rev B 2005, 72, 224412], in which the excited state of the whole system may be described as a linear combination of local excitations, has been implemented at ab initio level. Its performance is tested on the ionization potential and the energy gap between singlet ground state and lowest triplet for linear molecular hydrogen chains and more realistic systems, such as polyenes and polysilenes, using full configuration interaction (FCI) wave functions with a minimal basis set. The influence of different block sizes and the extent of interblock interactions are investigated. It has been demonstrated that satisfactory results can be obtained if the near degeneracies between the model space and the outer space are avoided and if interactions between the next-nearest neighbor blocks are considered. The method can be used with larger basis sets and other accurate enough ab initio evaluations (instead of FCI) of local excited states, from blocks, or from dimers or trimers of blocks. It provides a new possibility to accurately and economically describe the low-lying delocalized excited states of large systems, even inhomogeneous ones.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207