Are fragment-based quantum chemistry methods applicable to medium-sized water clusters?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fragment-based quantum chemistry methods are either based on the many-body expansion or the inclusion-exclusion principle. To compare the applicability of these two categories of methods, we have systematically evaluated the performance of the generalized energy based fragmentation (GEBF) method (J. Phys. Chem. A, 2007, 111, 2193) and the electrostatically embedded many-body (EE-MB) method (J. Chem. Theory Comput., 2007, 3, 46) for medium-sized water clusters (H2O)n (n = 10, 20, 30). Our calculations demonstrate that the GEBF method provides uniformly accurate ground-state energies for 10 low-energy isomers of three water clusters under study at a series of theory levels, while the EE-MB method (with one water molecule as a fragment and without using the cutoff distance) shows a poor convergence for (H2O)20 and (H2O)30 when the basis set contains diffuse functions. Our analysis shows that the neglect of the basis set superposition error for each subsystem has little effect on the accuracy of the GEBF method, but leads to much less accurate results for the EE-MB method. The accuracy of the EE-MB method can be dramatically improved by using an appropriate cutoff distance and using two water molecules as a fragment. For (H2O)30, the average deviation of the EE-MB method truncated up to the three-body level calculated using this strategy (relative to the conventional energies) is about 0.003 hartree at the M06-2X/6-311++G** level, while the deviation of the GEBF method with a similar computational cost is less than 0.001 hartree. The GEBF method is demonstrated to be applicable for electronic structure calculations of water clusters at any basis set.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".