MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893575320 · doi:10.1002/jcc.25362

Direct inversion of the iterative subspace with contracted planewave basis functions

2018· article· en· W2893575320 on OpenAlexafffund
Duncan W. Stuart, Nicholas J. Mosey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchCompute Canada
KeywordsBasis functionWave functionBasis (linear algebra)Basis setInversion (geology)Subspace topologySTO-nG basis setsFock matrixMatrix (chemical analysis)Electronic structureAtomic orbitalAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematicsComputational chemistryLinear combination of atomic orbitalsMathematical analysisFock spaceQuantum mechanicsPhysicsChemistryGeometryMoleculeElectron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ways to reduce the computational cost of periodic electronic structure calculations by using basis functions corresponding to linear combinations of planewaves have been examined recently. These contracted planewave (CPW) basis functions correspond to Fourier series representations of atom-centered basis functions, and thus provide access to some beneficial properties of planewave (PW) and localized basis functions. This study reports the development and assessment of a direct inversion of the iterative subspace (DIIS) method that employs unique properties of CPW basis functions to efficiently converge electronic wavefunctions. This method relies on access to a PW-based representation of the electronic structure to provide a means of efficiently evaluating matrix-vector products involving the application of the Fock matrix to the occupied molecular orbitals. These matrix-vector products are transformed into a form permitting the use of direct diagonalization techniques and DIIS methods typically employed with atom-centered basis sets. The abilities of this method are assessed through periodic Hartree-Fock calculations of a range of molecules and solid-state systems. The results show that the method reported in this study is approximately five times faster than CPW-based calculations in which the entire Fock matrix is calculated. This method is also found to be weakly dependent upon the size of the basis set, thus permitting the use of larger CPW basis sets to increase variational flexibility with a minor impact on computational performance. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207