Prediction of spectroscopic constants for diatomic molecules in the ground and excited states using time‐dependent density functional theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spectroscopic constants of the ground and next seven low-lying excited states of diatomic molecules CO, N2, P2, and ScF were computed using the density functional theory SAOP/ATZP model, in conjunction with time-dependent density functional theory (TD-DFT) and a recently developed Slater type basis set, ATZP. Spectroscopic constants, including the equilibrium distances r(e), harmonic vibrational frequency omega(e), vibrational anharmonicity omega(e)x(e), rotational constant B(e), centrifugal distortion constant D(e), the vibration-rotation interaction constant alpha(e), and the vibrational zero-point energy E(n)0 were generated in an effort to establish a reliable database for electron spectroscopy. By comparison with experimental values and a similar model with an established larger Slater-type basis set, et-QZ3P-xD, it was found that this model provides reliably accurate results at reduced computational costs, for both the ground and excited states of the molecules. The over all errors of all eight lowest lying electronic states of the molecules under study using the effective basis set are r(e)(+/-4%), omega(e)(+/-5% mostly without exceeding +/-20%), omega(e)x(e)(+/-5% mostly without exceeding 20%, much more accurate than a previous study on this constant of +/-30%), B(e)(+/-8%), D(e)(+/-10%), alpha(e)(+/-10%), and E(n)0(+/-10%). The accuracy obtained using the ATZP basis set is very competitive to the larger et-QZ3P-xD basis set in particular in the ground electronic states. The overall errors in r(e), omega(e)x(e), and alpha(e) in the ground states were given by +/-0.7, +/-10.1, and +/-8.4%, respectively, using the efficient ATZP basis set, which is competitive to the errors of +/-0.5, +/-9.2, and +/-9.1%, respectively for those constants using the larger et-QZ3P-xD basis set. The latter basis set, however, needs approximately four times of the CPU time on the National Supercomputing Facilities (Australia). Due to the efficiency of the model (TD-DFT, SAOP and ATZP), it will be readily applied to study larger molecular systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".