Laplacian of the Hamiltonian Kinetic Energy Density as an Indicator of Binding and Weak Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kinetic energy is the center of a controversy between two opposite points of view about its role in the formation of a chemical bond. One school states that a lowering of the kinetic energy associated with electron delocalization is the key stabilization mechanism of covalent bonding. In contrast, the opposite school holds that a chemical bond is formed by a decrease in the potential energy due to a concentration of electron density within the binding region. In this work, a topographic analysis of the Hamiltonian Kinetic Energy Density (KED) and its laplacian is presented to gain more insight into the role of the kinetic energy within chemical interactions. This study is focused on atoms, diatomic and organic molecules, along with their dimers. In addition, it is shown that the laplacian of the Hamiltonian KED exhibits a shell structure in atoms and that their outermost shell merge when a molecule is formed. A covalent bond is characterized by a concentration of kinetic energy, potential energy and electron densities along the internuclear axis, whereas a charge-shift bond is characterized by a fusion of external concentration shells and a depletion in the bonding region. In the case of weak intermolecular interactions, the external shell of the molecules merge into each other resulting in an intermolecular surface comparable to that obtained by the Non-covalent interaction (NCI) analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".