On the use of the exact exchange optimized effective potential method for static response properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the present work, we question the notion that the modified Kohn–Sham orbital energies and smaller HOMO‐LUMO gaps, produced from the exact exchange optimized effective potential (EXX‐OEP) method, might significantly improve the paramagnetic contribution to the NMR chemical shifts compared with the regular Hartree–Fock (HF) scheme. First of all, it is shown analytically that if there is such a local potential that produces the HF energy, and the Kohn–Sham orbitals are obtained as a result of separate rotations of the occupied and virtual HF orbitals, any static magnetic property obtained from the coupled perturbed HF method will be identical to that obtained from the EXX‐OEP approach. In fact the EXX‐OEP method is equivalent to the improved virtual orbitals (IVO) scheme in which the energies of the virtual orbitals are modified by an effective potential. It is shown that the IVO procedure leaves static response properties unchanged. To test our analysis numerically we have employed several variants of the EXX‐OEP method, based on the expansion of the local exchange potential into a linear combination of fit functions. The different EXX‐OEP schemes have been used to calculate the NMR chemical shifts for a set of small molecules containing C, H, N, O, and F atoms. Comparison of the deviation between experimental and calculated chemical shifts from the HF, the EXX‐OEP, and the common energy denominator approximation (CEDA) approximation to the EXX‐OEP methods has shown that for carbon, hydrogen, and fluorine the EXX‐OEP methods do not yield any improvement over the HF method. For nitrogen and oxygen we have found that the EXX‐OEP performs better than the HF method. However, in the limit of infinite fit basis set and, as a consequence of it, a perfect fit of the HF potential the EXX‐OEP and the HF methods would afford the same chemical shifts according to our theoretical analysis. Unfortunately, without a perfect fit the chemical shifts from the EXX‐OEP method strongly depend on the fit convergence. In our opinion, the EXX‐OEP method should not be used for response properties as it is numerically unstable. Thus, any apparent improvement of the EXX‐OEP method over the HF scheme for a finite fit basis set must be considered spurious. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem, 2009
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".