Spin-orbit coupling from a two-component self-consistent approach. I. Generalized Hartree-Fock theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".