MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740525614 · doi:10.1103/physreva.96.022502

Fourth-order series expansion of the exchange hole

2017· article· en· W2740525614 on OpenAlexafffund
Rodrigo Wang, Yongxi Zhou, Matthias Ernzerhof

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsSeries (stratigraphy)Taylor seriesOrder (exchange)ElectronGaussianTerm (time)Series expansionExchange interactionMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximate functionals for the exchange-correlation energy of electrons often draw on explicit or implicit models for the exchange-correlation hole. Here we focus on the spherically averaged exchange hole ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{\mathrm{X}}(\mathbf{r},u)$, which depends on the reference point $\mathbf{r}$ and on the electron-electron distance $u$. We extend the well-known [A. D. Becke and M. R. Roussel, Phys. Rev. A 39, 3761 (1989)] second-order Taylor-series expansion in $u$ to fourth order and we show that the fourth-order term can add important additional information that is particularly relevant for molecules compared to atoms. Drawing on these findings, we explore exchange functionals that depend on the fourth-order term of the expansion of ${\ensuremath{\rho}}_{\mathrm{X}}(\mathbf{r},u)$. We also find that Gaussian basis set expansions, frequently used in electronic structure codes, result in unsatisfactory representations of the fourth-order term.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.338 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207