Can a Dipole-Bound Electron Form a Pseudo-Atom? An Atoms-In-Molecules Study of the Hydrated Electron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-nuclear local maxima, or attractors, of electron density are a rare but very interesting feature of the electron density distribution in molecules and solids. Recently, non-nuclear attractors (NNAs) and the corresponding pseudoatoms of electron density have been identified with the quantum theory of atoms in molecules for some anionic clusters formed by several polar solvent molecules and an excess electron bound in either a solvated-electron or dipole-bound fashion. This contribution reports a detailed study of the topology of the electron density for a series of dipole-bound water cluster anions, as calculated with Hartree-Fock, Møller-Plesset perturbation theory, and coupled-cluster methods together with basis sets augmented with extra diffuse basis functions to accommodate the excess electron. For dipole-bound clusters, electron densities obtained with insufficient inclusion of electron correlation effects and tight basis sets feature a well-pronounced pseudoatom due to the excess electron, which ultimately disappears when a higher level of electronic structure theory and a more diffuse basis set are used. On the other hand, for solvated-electron clusters, where the excess electron is surrounded by solvent molecules, the existence of NNAs does not seem to be an artifact of the method employed, but rather a genuine feature of the electron density distribution. Pseudoatoms of electron density thus appear to be an exclusive feature of confined environments and are unlikely to be found on the tip of a cluster dipole or on solid surfaces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".