MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009685096 · doi:10.1021/ct500385a

Derivation of the RPA (Random Phase Approximation) Equation of ATDDFT (Adiabatic Time Dependent Density Functional Ground State Response Theory) from an Excited State Variational Approach Based on the Ground State Functional

2014· article· en· W2009685096 on OpenAlexafffund
Tom Ziegler, Mykhaylo Krykunov, Jochen Autschbach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsGround stateRandom phase approximationTime-dependent density functional theoryDensity functional theoryExcited stateAdiabatic processPhysicsPolarizabilityHybrid functionalQuantum mechanicsExcitationAtomic physicsQuantum electrodynamicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The random phase approximation (RPA) equation of adiabatic time dependent density functional ground state response theory (ATDDFT) has been used extensively in studies of excited states. It extracts information about excited states from frequency dependent ground state response properties and avoids, thus, in an elegant way, direct Kohn-Sham calculations on excited states in accordance with the status of DFT as a ground state theory. Thus, excitation energies can be found as resonance poles of frequency dependent ground state polarizability from the eigenvalues of the RPA equation. ATDDFT is approximate in that it makes use of a frequency independent energy kernel derived from the ground state functional. It is shown in this study that one can derive the RPA equation of ATDDFT from a purely variational approach in which stationary states above the ground state are located using our constricted variational DFT (CV-DFT) method and the ground state functional. Thus, locating stationary states above the ground state due to one-electron excitations with a ground state functional is completely equivalent to solving the RPA equation of TDDFT employing the same functional. The present study is an extension of a previous work in which we demonstrated the equivalence between ATDDFT and CV-DFT within the Tamm-Dancoff approximation.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207