MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053511180 · doi:10.1063/1.3176515

How to tell when a model Kohn–Sham potential is not a functional derivative

2009· article· en· W2053511180 on OpenAlex
Alex P. Gaiduk, Viktor N. Staroverov

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKohn–Sham equationsDensity functional theoryFunctional derivativeAtomic orbitalDerivative (finance)Energy functionalHybrid functionalSecond derivativePath integral formulationMathematicsPhysicsZero (linguistics)Line (geometry)Computational chemistryMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisChemistryElectronQuantumGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model exchange-correlation potential constructed with Kohn-Sham orbitals should be a functional derivative of some density functional. Several necessary conditions for a functional derivative are discussed including: (i) minimization of the total-energy expression by the ground-state solution of the Kohn-Sham equations, (ii) path independence of the van Leeuwen-Baerends line integral, and (iii) net zero force and zero torque on the density. A number of existing model potentials are checked for these properties and it is found that most of the potentials tested are not functional derivatives. Physical properties obtained from potentials that have no parent functionals are ambiguous and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.

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.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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