MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968342670 · doi:10.1063/1.5114901

Spin-orbit coupling from a two-component self-consistent approach. I. Generalized Hartree-Fock theory

2019· article· en· W2968342670 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques K. Desmarais, Jean‐Pierre Flament, Alessandro Erba

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinorHartree–Fock methodDiagonalFock spacePhysicsComponent (thermodynamics)Quantum mechanicsMaxima and minimaTheoretical physicsMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Formal and computational aspects are discussed for a self-consistent treatment of spin-orbit coupling within the two-component generalization of the Hartree-Fock theory. A molecular implementation into the CRYSTAL program is illustrated, where the standard one-component code (typical of Hartree-Fock and Kohn-Sham spin-unrestricted methodologies) is extended to work in terms of two-component spinors. When passing from a one- to a two-component description, the Fock and density matrices become complex. Furthermore, apart from the αα and ββ diagonal spin blocks, one has also to deal with the αβ and βα off-diagonal spin blocks. These latter blocks require special care as, for open-shell electronic configurations, certain constraints of the one-component code have to be relaxed. This formalism intrinsically allows us to treat local magnetic torque as well as noncollinear magnetization and orbital current-density. An original scheme to impose a specified noncollinear magnetization on each atomic center as a starting guess to the self-consistent procedure is presented. This approach turns out to be essential to surpass local minima in the rugged energy landscape and allows possible convergence to the ground-state solution in all of the discussed test cases.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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