Benchmarking of Model Core Potentials: Application to the Halogen Complexes of Group 4 Metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reliability of the model core potential (MCP) method was probed in a systematic RHF and MP2 study of the geometries of the group 4 metal halogen complexes (MX4; M = Ti, Zr, Hf and X = F, Cl, Br, I). The computed bond lengths were compared with experimental values, as well as those predicted using effective core potentials. Provided that electrons from the outermost core shell of the metal atom are treated explicitly in the calculation, both the MCP and ECP methods predict M-X bond lengths within 0.02-0.03 A of experiment. The reaction energies for a simple set of halogen substitution reactions of the MX4 complexes leading to the mixed halogen complex, MX2Y2, were also studied. Although no experimental values are available for these reactions, comparison was made with the values computed using effective core potentials. The predictability of the different pseudopotential techniques and the importance of the metal atom valence basis set contraction scheme and polarization space are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".