Approximate First-Principles Anharmonic Calculations of Polyatomic Spectra Using MP2 and B3LYP Potentials: Comparisons with Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".