MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103814944 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b02062

Fast Numerical Evaluation of Time-Derivative Nonadiabatic Couplings for Mixed Quantum–Classical Methods

2015· article· en· W2103814944 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilya G. Ryabinkin, Jayashree Nagesh, Artur F. Izmaylov

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlfred P. Sloan Foundation
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)BottleneckRepresentation (politics)Atomic orbitalWave functionQuantumSlater determinantScheme (mathematics)Applied mathematicsDerivative (finance)Numerical differentiationPhysicsComputer scienceStatistical physicsComputational chemistryMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisChemistryElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed a numerical differentiation scheme that eliminates evaluation of overlap determinants in calculating the time-derivative nonadiabatic couplings (TDNACs). Evaluation of these determinants was the bottleneck in previous implementations of mixed quantum-classical methods using numerical differentiation of electronic wave functions in the Slater determinant representation. The central idea of our approach is, first, to reduce the analytic time derivatives of Slater determinants to time derivatives of molecular orbitals and then to apply a finite-difference formula. Benchmark calculations prove the efficiency of the proposed scheme showing impressive several-order-of-magnitude speedups of the TDNAC calculation step for midsize molecules.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations110
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry LettersSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207