MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332163673 · doi:10.1021/jp5060155

Approximate First-Principles Anharmonic Calculations of Polyatomic Spectra Using MP2 and B3LYP Potentials: Comparisons with Experiment

2014· article· en· W2332163673 on OpenAlexaff
Tapta Kanchan Roy, Tucker Carrington, R. Benny Gerber

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnharmonicitySpectral linePolyatomic ionSpectroscopyMoleculeAtomic physicsPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)ChemistryPerturbation (astronomy)PhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anharmonic vibrational spectroscopy calculations using MP2 and B3LYP computed potential surfaces are carried out for a series of molecules, and frequencies and intensities are compared with those from experiment. The vibrational self-consistent field with second-order perturbation correction (VSCF-PT2) is used in computing the spectra. The test calculations have been performed for the molecules HNO3, C2H4, C2H4O, H2SO4, CH3COOH, glycine, and alanine. Both MP2 and B3LYP give results in good accord with experimental frequencies, though, on the whole, MP2 gives very slightly better agreement. A statistical analysis of deviations in frequencies from experiment is carried out that gives interesting insights. The most probable percentage deviation from experimental frequencies is about -2% (to the red of the experiment) for B3LYP and +2% (to the blue of the experiment) for MP2. There is a higher probability for relatively large percentage deviations when B3LYP is used. The calculated intensities are also found to be in good accord with experiment, but the percentage deviations are much larger than those for frequencies. The results show that both MP2 and B3LYP potentials, used in VSCF-PT2 calculations, account well for anharmonic effects in the spectroscopy of molecules of the types considered.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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