Data-driven kinetic energy density fitting for orbital-free DFT: Linear vs Gaussian process regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the dependence of kinetic energy densities (KEDs) on density-dependent variables that have been suggested in previous works on kinetic energy functionals for orbital-free density functional theory. We focus on the role of data distribution and on data and regressor selection. We compare unweighted and weighted linear and Gaussian process regressions of KEDs for light metals and a semiconductor. We find that good quality linear regression resulting in good energy-volume dependence is possible over density-dependent variables suggested in previous literature studies. This is achieved with weighted fitting based on the KED histogram. With Gaussian process regressions, excellent KED fit quality well exceeding that of linear regressions is obtained as well as a good energy-volume dependence, which was somewhat better than that of best linear regressions. We find that while the use of the effective potential as a descriptor improves linear KED fitting, it does not improve the quality of the energy-volume dependence with linear regressions but substantially improves it with Gaussian process regression. Gaussian process regression is also able to perform well without data weighting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".