Performance of Relativistic Effective Core Potentials in DFT Calculations on Actinide Compounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Density functional theory (DFT) calculations using relativistic effective core potentials (RECPs) have emerged as a robust and fast method of calculating the structural parameters and energy changes of the thermochemical reactions of actinide complexes. A comparative investigation of the performance of the Stuttgart small-core and large-core RECPs in DFT calculations has been carried out. The vibrational frequencies and reaction enthalpy changes of several uranium(VI) compounds computed using these RECPs were compared to those obtained using DFT and a four-component one-electron scalar relativistic approximation of the full Dirac equation with large all-electron basis sets (AE). The relativistic AE method is a full solution of the Dirac equation with all spin components separated out. This method gives the "correct" answer (with respect to scalar relativity) which should be closest to experimental values when an adequate density functional is used and in the absence of significant spin-orbit effects. The small-core RECP always show better agreement with the four-component scalar- relativistic AE method than the large-core RECP. We conclude that the 5s, 5p, and 5d orbitals are of great importance in determining the chemistry of actinide complexes. Instances in which large-core RECPs give better agreement with experimental data are attributed to either experimental uncertainties or error cancellations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".