MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092937521 · doi:10.1063/1.2931563

Numerical integration of exchange-correlation energies and potentials using transformed sparse grids

2008· article· en· W2092937521 on OpenAlexaff
Juan I. Rodríguez, David C. Thompson, Paul W. Ayers, Andreas M. Köster

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCentro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico NacionalConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsStatistical physicsCorrelationComputer scienceComputational physicsPhysicsApplied mathematicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new numerical integration procedure for exchange-correlation energies and potentials is proposed and "proof of principle" results are presented. The numerical integration grids are built from sparse-tensor product grids (constructed according to Smolyak's prescription [Dokl. Akad. Nauk. 4, 240 (1963)] ) on the unit cube. The grid on the unit cube is then transformed to a grid over real space with respect to a weight function, which we choose to be the promolecular density. This produces a "whole molecule" grid, in contrast to conventional integration methods in density-functional theory, which use atom-in-molecule grids. The integration scheme was implemented in a modified version of the DEMON2K density-functional theory program, where it is used to evaluate integrals of the exchange-correlation energy density and the exchange-correlation potential. Ground-state energies and molecular geometries are accurately computed. The biggest advantages of the grid are its flexibility (it is easy to change the number and distribution of grid points) and its whole molecule nature. The latter feature is potentially helpful for basis-set-free computational algorithms.

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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207