MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038250367 · doi:10.1063/1.3113663

Tailored Gauss quadratures, a promising route for an efficient evaluation of multicenter integrals over B functions

2009· article· en· W2038250367 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Rebabti, R. Ghomari, Ahmed Bouferguène

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical functions and polynomials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsExtrapolationQuadrature (astronomy)Order of integration (calculus)MathematicsSlater integralsApplied mathematicsMultiple integralContext (archaeology)Fourier transformMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the framework of the Fourier integral transform, complicated multicenter integrals, e.g., three-center nuclear attraction and exchange integrals, over B functions involve a multiple integral (double or triple), the innermost of which is a Hankel transform of an exponentially decreasing term. Because of the oscillatory nature of the Hankel transform and the order in which it occurs in the definition of multicenter integrals, i.e., innermost, an efficient evaluation of such a quantity requires highly performant algorithms. In this context, extrapolation techniques emerged, during the past decade, as a possible solution to the problem of evaluating the oscillating semi-infinite integral. With a view to improving the efficiency of future algorithms, this contribution introduces a new technique for the evaluation of the oscillating integral by means of a tailored Gaussian quadrature. Using the case of three-center nuclear attraction integrals as a working example, it is shown that the new approach allows the semi-infinite integral to be evaluated accurately if not exactly. Further, when the roots and weights of the quadrature are available, a complexity analysis of our algorithm shows encouraging results compared to nonlinear extrapolation techniques.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMathematical functions and polynomialsFrench-language works237,207