Simultaneous Account of Dynamic and Nondynamic Correlations Based on Complementarity of CI and CC Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to overcome the shortcommings of standard post-Hartree-Fock approaches in their handling of the dynamic and nondynamic correlations, we investigate the possibility of mutual enhancement between variational and perturbative approaches, as represented by various CI and CC methods, respectively. This is achieved either via the amplitude-corrections to the one- and two-body CCSD cluster amplitudes based on some external source, in particular a modest size MR CISD wave function, in the so-called reduced multireference (RMR) CCSD method, or via the energy-corrections to the standard CCSD based on the same MR CISD wave function. The latter corrections are based on the asymmetric energy formula and may be interpreted either as the MR CISD corrections to CCSD or RMR CCSD, or as the CCSD corrections to MR CISD. This reciprocity is pointed out and a new perturbative correction within the MR CISD is also formulated. The earlier results are briefly summarized and compared with those introduced here for the first time using the exactly solvable double-zeta model of the HF and N2 molecules.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".