Using collocation and a hierarchical basis to solve the vibrational Schrödinger equation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that it is possible to compute vibrational energy levels of polyatomic molecules with a collocation method and a basis of products of one-dimensional harmonic oscillator functions pruned so that it does not include functions for which the indices of many of the one-dimensional functions are nonzero. Functions with many nonzero indices are coupled only by terms that depend simultaneously on many coordinates, and they are typically small. The collocation equation is derived without invoking differences of interpolation operators, which simplifies implementation of the method. This, however, requires inverting a matrix whose elements are values of the pruned basis functions at the collocation points. The collocation points are the points on a Smolyak grid whose size is equal to the size of the pruned basis set. The Smolyak grid is built from symmetrized Leja points. Because both the basis and the grid are not tensor products, the inverse is not straightforward. It can be done by using so-called hierarchical 1-D basis functions. They are defined so that the matrix whose elements are the 1-D hierarchical basis functions evaluated at points is lower triangular. We test the method by applying it to compute 100 energy levels of CH2NH with an iterative eigensolver.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".