Electronic energy level alignment at metal-molecule interfaces with a<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using density functional theory and many-body perturbation theory within a $GW$ approximation, we calculate the electronic structure of a metal-molecule interface consisting of benzene diamine (BDA) adsorbed on Au(111). Through direct comparison with photoemission data, we show that a conventional ${G}_{0}{W}_{0}$ approach can underestimate the energy of the adsorbed molecular resonance relative to the Au Fermi level by up to 0.8 eV. The source of this discrepancy is twofold: a 0.7 eV underestimate of the gas phase ionization energy (IE), and a 0.2 eV overestimate of the Au work function. Refinements to self-energy calculations within the $GW$ framework that account for deviations in both the Au work function and BDA gas-phase IE can result in an interfacial electronic level alignment in quantitative agreement with experiment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".