MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731107305 · doi:10.1063/1.4994618

Method for making 2-electron response reduced density matrices approximately <i>N</i>-representable

2018· article· en· W2731107305 on OpenAlexafffund
Caitlin Lanssens, Paul W. Ayers, Dimitri Van Neck, Stijn De Baerdemacker, Klaas Gunst, Patrick Bultinck

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersShared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing NetworkVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCompute Canada
KeywordsRDMMatrix (chemical analysis)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsComputer scienceNorm (philosophy)AlgorithmPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In methods like geminal-based approaches or coupled cluster that are solved using the projected Schrödinger equation, direct computation of the 2-electron reduced density matrix (2-RDM) is impractical and one falls back to a 2-RDM based on response theory. However, the 2-RDMs from response theory are not N-representable. That is, the response 2-RDM does not correspond to an actual physical N-electron wave function. We present a new algorithm for making these non-N-representable 2-RDMs approximately N-representable, i.e., it has the right symmetry and normalization and it fulfills the P-, Q-, and G-conditions. Next to an algorithm which can be applied to any 2-RDM, we have also developed a 2-RDM optimization procedure specifically for seniority-zero 2-RDMs. We aim to find the 2-RDM with the right properties which is the closest (in the sense of the Frobenius norm) to the non-N-representable 2-RDM by minimizing the square norm of the difference between this initial response 2-RDM and the targeted 2-RDM under the constraint that the trace is normalized and the 2-RDM, Q-matrix, and G-matrix are positive semidefinite, i.e., their eigenvalues are non-negative. Our method is suitable for fixing non-N-representable 2-RDMs which are close to being N-representable. Through the N-representability optimization algorithm we add a small correction to the initial 2-RDM such that it fulfills the most important N-representability conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207