MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009611342 · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ab7d30

Machine learning for the solution of the Schrödinger equation

2020· article· en· W3009611342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning Science and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchrödinger equationConstruct (python library)HeadwayDensity functional theoryStructural equation modelingChemical equationComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematicsStatistical physicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsChemistryMachine learningSimulationPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Machine learning (ML) methods have recently been increasingly widely used in quantum chemistry. While ML methods are now accepted as high accuracy approaches to construct interatomic potentials for applications, the use of ML to solve the Schrödinger equation, either vibrational or electronic, while not new, is only now making significant headway towards applications. We survey recent uses of ML techniques to solve the Schrödinger equation, including the vibrational Schrödinger equation, the electronic Schrödinger equation and the related problems of constructing functionals for density functional theory (DFT) as well as potentials which enter semi-empirical approximations to DFT. We highlight similarities and differences and specific difficulties that ML faces in these applications and possibilities for cross-fertilization of ideas.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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