Efficient bond function basis set for π‐π interaction energies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic study has been carried out to investigate the accuracy of mid-bond functions in describing pi-pi interactions in benzene dimer. Potential energy curves are calculated for the sandwich, T-shaped, and parallel-displaced configurations of benzene dimer by adding bond functions in MP2 (second-order Møller-Plesset perturbation theory) calculations with a wide range of split-valence and augmented, correlation-consistent basis sizes. At MP2 level, the largest basis set used with a bond function (denoted aug-cc-pVDZf-6s6p4d2f) differs by only approximately 0.1 kcal/mol relative to the result obtained from the standard aug-cc-pVQZ basis calculation (without the bond function). The calculated potential energy curves from the bond function basis aug-cc-pVDZf-6s6p4d2f and the larger standard basis aug-cc-pVTZ are in excellent agreement with each other for all three configurations. The number of bond function basis aug-cc-pVDZf-6s6p4d2f is 526 compared to 828 of aug-cc-pVTZ and 1512 of aug-cc-pVQZ. Current study shows that bond functions can be effectively employed to give accurate description of pi-pi interactions with the addition of only a minimal number of bond functions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".