MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280585246 · doi:10.1063/5.0091198

Density-functional <i>theory</i> vs density-functional fits

2022· article· en· W4280585246 on OpenAlex
Axel D. Becke

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDensity functional theoryOrbital-free density functional theoryStatistical physicsComputationWork (physics)Time-dependent density functional theoryHybrid functionalExperimental dataComputational chemistryPhysicsMathematicsChemistryThermodynamicsAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kohn-Sham density-functional theory (DFT), the predominant framework for electronic structure computations in chemistry today, has undergone considerable evolution in the past few decades. The earliest DFT approximations were based on uniform electron gas models completely free of empirical parameters. Tremendous improvements were made by incorporating density gradients and a small number of parameters, typically one or two, obtained from fits to atomic data. Incorporation of exact exchange and fitting to molecular data, such as experimental heats of formation, allowed even further improvements. This, however, opened a Pandora's Box of fitting possibilities, given the limitless choices of chemical reactions that can be fit. The result is a recent explosion of DFT approximations empirically fit to hundreds, or thousands, of chemical reference data. These fitted density functionals may contain several dozen empirical parameters. What has been lost in this fitting trend is physical modeling based on theory. In this work, we present a density functional comprising our best efforts to model exchange-correlation in DFT using good theory. We compare its performance to that of heavily fit density functionals using the GMTKN55 chemical reference data of Goerigk and co-workers [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 32184 (2017)]. Our density-functional theory, using only a handful of physically motivated pre-factors, competes with the best heavily fit Kohn-Sham functionals in the literature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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