Generalized energy‐based fragmentation approach for modeling condensed phase systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have extended the generalized energy‐based fragmentation (GEBF) method to condensed phase systems with periodic boundary condition (PBC). The so‐called PBC‐GEBF method provides an alternative way of calculating electronic structures of condensed phase systems, whose accuracy is comparable to standard periodic electronic structure methods for some types of condensed phase systems such as molecular crystals and ionic liquid crystals. Within the PBC‐GEBF approach, the unit cell energy (or properties) of a condensed phase system can be evaluated as a linear combination of ground‐state energies (or corresponding properties) of a series of electrostatically embedded subsystems, which can be routinely calculated with existing molecular quantum chemistry packages. With the PBC‐GEBF approach, one can routinely perform ab initio calculations at post‐Hartree–Fock levels, including Møller–Plesset perturbation theory (MP2) or coupled cluster singles and doubles, on certain types of condensed phase systems, in which periodic post‐Hartree–Fock methods are not available or not feasible computationally. This review will offer an overview of the methodology and implementation of the PBC‐GEBF method and its applications in predicting the structures, lattice energies, and vibrational spectra of a wide range of molecular and ionic liquid crystals. Our results show that the PBC‐GEBF approach at post‐Hartree–Fock theory level can generally provide highly accurate descriptions on the structure and properties of crystals under study. For example, the vibrational spectra of the crystalline BH3NH3 predicted by the PBC‐GEBF approach at the MP2 level are in better agreement with the experimentally observed spectra, than those based on density functional theory calculations. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2017, 7:e1297. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1297 This article is categorized under: Structure and Mechanism > Molecular Structures
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".