Vibronic coupling in the excited cationic states of ethylene: Simulation of the photoelectron spectrum between 12 and 18eV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of vibronic coupling on structure and spectroscopy is investigated in the excited cationic states of ethylene. It is found from equation of motion coupled cluster singles and doubles method for ionization potential electronic structure calculations in a triple-zeta plus double polarization basis set that ethylene in its third (B (2)A(g)) and fourth (C (2)B(2u)) ionized states does not have a stable minimum-energy geometry. The potential-energy surfaces of these states are energetically distinct and well separated at the ground-state geometry of ethylene, but in a geometry optimization as the structure of the ion relaxes, these surfaces end up in conical intersections and finally in the stable equilibrium geometry of the second ionized state (A (2)B(3g)). The topology of the potential-energy surfaces can be clearly understood using a vibronic model Hamiltonian. Furthermore, by diagonalizing this model Hamiltonian, the photoelectron spectrum of ethylene corresponding to the second, third, and fourth ionized states (12-18 eV) is simulated. Spectra from vibronic simulations including up to quartic coupling constants and using various normal-mode basis sets are compared to those from vertical Franck-Condon simulations to understand the importance of vibronic coupling and nonadiabatic effects and to examine the influence of individual normal modes on the spectrum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".