Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Uncertainty estimates have long been a standard part of experimental physics, but the same has not been true on the theoretical side. However, the culture is now changing, and it is becoming more common to include uncertainty estimates in theoretical calculations of atomic and molecular properties. This tutorial paper discusses the progress that has been made in assessing the accuracy of both theory and experiment in a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from the most fundamental measurements of atomic properties such as the electron anomalous magnetic moment and the proton size puzzle in the hydrogen atom to uncertainty estimates for two- and three-electron atoms (helium and lithium), for many-electron atoms and for electron–atom scattering processes. This is followed by a discussion of uncertainties for molecules, and especially the recent remarkable progress for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:math> and H 2 treated as full three- and four-body problems without the use of the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. The paper includes a discussion of variational methods and the Hylleraas–Undheim–MacDonald theorem, which guarantees variational bounds for excited states as well as for the ground state. This leads naturally to a discussion of the use of pseudostates to perform perturbation sums over intermediate states, and a demonstration calculation for the polarizability of hydrogen. The results of well-defined uncertainty estimates have important implications for both the search for new physics beyond the standard model from high-precision measurements, and for the application of theoretical atomic and molecular data to plasma physics and to astrophysics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".