A controlled study of the effect of deviations from symmetry of the potential energy surface (PES) on the accuracy of the vibrational spectrum computed with collocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symmetry, in particular permutational symmetry, of a potential energy surface (PES) is a useful property in quantum chemical calculations. It facilitates, in particular, state labelling and identification of degenerate states. In many practically important applications, however, these issues are unimportant. The imposition of exact symmetry and the perception that it is necessary create additional methodological requirements narrowing or complicating algorithmic choices that are thereby biased against methods and codes that by default do not incorporate symmetry, including most off-the-shelf machine learning methods that cannot be directly used if exact symmetry is demanded. By introducing symmetric and unsymmetric errors into the PES of H2CO in a controlled way and computing the vibrational spectrum with collocation using symmetric and nonsymmetric collocation point sets, we show that when the deviations from an ideal PES are random, imposition of exact symmetry does not bring any practical advantages. Moreover, a calculation ignoring symmetry may be more accurate. We also compare machine-learned PESs with and without symmetrization and demonstrate that there is no advantage of imposing exact symmetry for the accuracy of the vibrational spectrum.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".