MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982092637 · doi:10.1002/jcc.26087

Pseudodiagonalization‐based wavefunction optimization with contracted planewave basis functions

2019· article· en· W2982092637 on OpenAlexafffund
Duncan W. Stuart, Nicholas J. Mosey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNonlinear Optical Materials Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWave functionBasis setBasis (linear algebra)Basis functionSubspace topologyAtomic orbitalMathematicsQuantum mechanicsDensity matrixHybrid functionalComputational chemistryPhysicsDensity functional theoryMathematical analysisChemistryGeometryElectronQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic structure calculations representing the molecular orbitals (MOs) with contracted planewave basis functions (CPWBFs) have been reported recently. CPWBFs are Fourier‐series representations of atom‐centered basis functions. The mathematical features of CPWBFs permit the construction of matrix–vector products, FC o, involving the application of the Fock matrix, F, to the set of occupied MOs, C o, without the explicit evaluation of F. This approach offers a theoretical speed‐up of M/n over F‐based methods, where M and n are the number of basis functions and occupied MOs, respectively. The present study reports methodological advances that permit FC o‐based optimization of wavefunction formed from CPWBFs. In particular, a technique is reported for optimizing wavefunctions by combining pseudodiagonalization techniques based on an exact representation of FC o, approximate information regarding the virtual orbital energies, and direct inversion of the iterative subspace optimization schemes to guide the wavefunction to a converged solution. This method is found to speed‐up wavefunction optimizations by factors of up to ~6 − 8 over F‐based optimization methods while providing identical results. Further, the computational cost of this technique is relatively insensitive to basis set size, thus providing further benefits in calculations using large CPWBF basis sets. The results of density functional theory calculations show that this method permits the use of hybrid exchange‐correlation (XC) functionals with a small increase in effort over analogous calculations using generalized gradient approximation XC functionals. © 2019 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational ChemistrySame topicNonlinear Optical Materials ResearchFrench-language works237,207