Applications of Time-Dependent and Time-Independent Density Functional Theory to Electronic Transitions in Tetrahedral d<sup>0</sup> Metal Oxides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present benchmark calculations on excitation energies based on time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) as well as orbital relaxed self-consistent and constricted variational DFT (RSCF-CV-DFT) with and without use of the Tamm-Dancoff approximation. The compilation contains results for the 3d complexes MnO₄⁻, CrO₄²⁻, and VO₄³⁻, as well as the 4d congeners RuO₄, TcO₄⁻, and MoO₄²⁻, and 5d homologues OsO₄, ReO₄⁻, and WO₄²⁻. Considerations have been given to the local density approximation (LDA) and the functionals BP86 and PBE based on the generalized gradient approximation (GGA), as well as the hybrids B3LYP, BHLYP, and PBE0 and the length corrected functional LCBP86. We find for the 3d complexes that RSCF-CV-DFT fares better than TDDFT. Thus, in the case of RSCF-CV-DFT, the average root-mean-square deviations (RMSDs) are 0.25-0.3 eV for GGAs, 0.1 eV for B3LYP, and 0.45 eV for BHLYP. TDDFT affords RMSDs that on average range from 0.3 eV for local functionals to 0.7 eV for BHLYP with the largest fraction of Hartree-Fock (HF) exchange. TDDFT is seen to fare better among the heavier tetraoxo systems. For the 4d and 5d systems, the three functionals B3LYP, PBE0 with an intermediate fraction of HF exchange, and LCBP86 have the lowest RMSD of 0.2 eV, whereas the local functionals (LDA, BP86, BPE) and BHLYP with the highest HF fraction and LCBP86* have a somewhat larger RMSD of 0.3 eV. Nearly the same performance is observed for RSCF-CV-DFT with respect to the different functionals in the case of the 4d and 5d systems. Thus, for the heavier tetraoxo systems, the two DFT schemes are comparable in accuracy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".