MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009168234 · doi:10.1039/c0cp02871a

Ground-state properties of LiH by reptation quantum Monte Carlo methods

2011· article· en· W2009168234 on OpenAlexafffund
Egor Ospadov, Daniel G. Oblinsky, Stuart M. Rothstein

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Chemistry Chemical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsQuantum Monte CarloStatistical physicsReptationMonte Carlo methodPolarizabilityTensor (intrinsic definition)Basis setGround stateFull configuration interactionPhysicsField (mathematics)Basis (linear algebra)Computational chemistryQuantum mechanicsChemistryConfiguration interactionMathematicsDensity functional theoryMoleculeNuclear magnetic resonanceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We apply reptation quantum Monte Carlo to calculate one- and two-electron properties for ground-state LiH, including all tensor components for static polarizabilities and hyperpolarizabilities to fourth-order in the field. The importance sampling is performed with a large (QZ4P) STO basis set single determinant, directly obtained from commercial software, without incurring the overhead of optimizing many-parameter Jastrow-type functions of the inter-electronic and internuclear distances. We present formulas for the electrical response properties free from the finite-field approximation, which can be problematic for the purposes of stochastic estimation. The α, γ, A and C polarizability values are reasonably consistent with recent determinations reported in the literature, where they exist. A sum rule is obeyed for components of the B tensor, but B(zz,zz) as well as β(zzz) differ from what was reported in the literature.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Chemistry Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207