MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164883677 · doi:10.1139/v09-061

Kohn–Sham DFT and ligand-field theory — Is there a synergy?

2009· article· en· W2164883677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claus Erik Schäffer, Jesper Bendix

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetism in coordination complexes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigand field theoryChemistryScalar (mathematics)Scalar fieldField (mathematics)Diagonal matrixComputational chemistryMatrix (chemical analysis)DiagonalAtomic orbitalQuantum mechanicsPhysicsMathematicsElectronGeometryPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forming electronic states of the partially filled shell of transition-metal atomic and molecular systems, real, symmetry-based, fixed, Kohn–Sham eigenorbitals can be used to bridge KS-states with strong-field, ligand-field states. Thereby, DFT computations, restrained by the use of these frozen orbitals of the so-called average-of-configuration type, allow a central-field modeling of the partially filled shell whose Hamiltonian matrix consists of mutually orthogonal diagonal and non-diagonal parts, of which only the former can be computed. Mutually orthogonal operators of ligand-field theory are particularly suited to parameterize the energy “data” obtained from the bridges between molecular Kohn–Sham DFT states and ligand-field states. With the d 2 configuration as the simplest example encompassing both ligand-field and interelectronic repulsion, each one-electron parameter, though defined by energy differences of perturbed d orbitals, is associated with a 45 × 45, diagonal, theoretical, strong-field-type coefficient matrix of the ligand field repulsion model (LFR), which is mapped in a one-to-one fashion onto a likewise diagonal KS-DFT computational energy matrix. For sets of mutually orthogonal operators, the mapping determines the value of any such ligand-field parameter as a scalar product between the DFT matrix and the coefficient matrix of the associated ligand-field operator. Each and every two-electron parameter of LFR is in the same strong-field function basis associated with a 45 × 45 coefficient matrix that includes a non-diagonal part. This matrix, nevertheless, by the formation of a scalar product with the appropriate diagonal, computational DFT matrix, provides the value of the two-electron parameter. In spite of the lacking non-diagonal DFT information, its non-diagonal elements of the two-electron interelectronic repulsion matrices are indirectly accessible through the parameterization based upon the computed diagonal DFT matrices combined with the mapping of the DFT energy results onto the parametric LFR. In this way, LFR delivers back to DFT a quantification of the deviation of the systems’ eigenbasis from the DFT-computed states, which are defined by having unit occupation numbers. This work focuses firstly on using the LFR model for forming a full DFT energy matrix and dissecting it into mutually orthogonal one- and two-electron parts and secondly on the use of the two-electron parts to obtain a complete ligand-field image of a nephelauxetic, molecular atom, intrinsic of the chemical system.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0060.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ChemistrySame topicMagnetism in coordination complexesFrench-language works237,207