Investigating the Linear Response Function under Approximations Following the Coupled-Perturbed Approach for Atoms and Molecules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linear response kernel also referred to as linear response function (LRF) in the framework of conceptual density functional theory has gained tremendous success in time-dependent density functional theory. Comparatively less attention has been devoted to the LRF from a chemical reactivity perspective in its time- or frequency-independent context, although it has recently been used to qualitatively describe electron delocalization, (anti-)aromaticity, inductive and mesomeric effects, etc. Despite these successes, which were obtained by approximating the LRF using the independent particle approximation deriving from a coupled-perturbed Kohn-Sham computation, the robustness of this LRF approach needs to be assessed. In this work, we compute the LRF at four levels of approximation (independent particle approximation, random phase approximation, Hartree-Fock approximation, and the (exact) DFT (density functional theory) expression) using functionals from the first four rungs of Jacob's ladder of exchange-correlation energy functionals. To scrutinize the impact of these approximations, new visualization strategies are discussed and systematized. The overall conclusion is that the independent particle approximation yields qualitatively correct results (ergo previous conceptual applications of the LRF are trustworthy), but for quantitative results, LRF expressions including coulomb and exchange(-correlation) terms should be included. With respect to functionals, density-gradient contributions to the exchange-correlation kernel are less than 10% and may be omitted safely where that is preferable computationally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".