MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088243437 · doi:10.1063/1.2868758

Partially linearized, fully size-extensive, and reduced multireference coupled-cluster methods. I. Formalism and mutual relationship

2008· article· en· W2088243437 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiangzhu Li, Josef Paldus

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoupled clusterFormalism (music)AmplitudeExcited stateAcronymPhysicsMathematicsStatistical physicsAtomic physicsQuantum mechanicsMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a fully size-extensive alternative of the reduced multireference (RMR) coupled-cluster (CC) method with singles (S) and doubles (D) that generates a subset of higher-than-pair cluster amplitudes, using linearized CC equations from the full CC chain, projected onto the corresponding higher-than-doubly excited configurations. This approach is referred to as partially linearized (pl) MR CCSD method and characterized by the acronym plMR CCSD. In contrast to a similar CCSDT-1 method [Y. S. Lee et al., J. Chem. Phys. 81, 5906 (1984)] this approach also considers higher than triples (currently up to hexuples), while focusing only on a small subset of such amplitudes, referred to as the primary ones. These amplitudes are selected using similar criteria as in RMR CCSD. An extension considering secondary triples via the standard (T)-type corrections, resulting in the plMR CCSD(T) method, is also considered. The relationship of RMR and plMR CCSD and CCSD(T) approaches is discussed, and their performance and characteristics are the subject of the subsequent Part II of this paper.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207