MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053557429 · doi:10.1002/qua.560080834

Correlation effects in the low-lying excited states of the PPP models of alternant hydrocarbons. II. State correlation diagrams

2009· article· en· W2053557429 on OpenAlexaff
Josef Paldus, Jakub Čı́žek, Ivan Hubač

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Quantum Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)Excited stateCoupling constantEigenvalues and eigenvectorsChemistryElectronic correlationQuantum mechanicsConfiguration interactionPhysicsAtomic physicsElectronMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown how to construct highly realistic state correlation diagrams for alternant hydrocarbons in the π-electron approximation based on the Pariser-Parr-Pople (PPP) Hamiltonian. These diagrams display the dependence of the N-electron eigenenergies of the PPP Hamiltonian on the coupling constant, which is chosen conveniently as the reciprocal value of the resonance integral β. These diagrams are easily constructed, using a minimum of calculations, since (a) the exact eigenstates and energies of the PPP Hamiltonian are easily found in both fully correlated and uncorrelated limits, (b) the states in both limits may be interrelated using the spin, space, and alternancy symmetry classification as well as the assumption of the noncrossing rule, and (c) the slopes of the eigenenergy dependence on the coupling constant is easily available in both limits. The resulting correlation diagrams give a good approximation to the low-lying exact eigenvalues of the PPP Hamiltonian for the whole range of the coupling constant and yield the correct sequences of the low-lying excited states for physically plausible values of the resonance integral.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Quantum ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207