MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394993538 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00133

Beyond Explored Functionals: A Computational Journey of Two-Photon Absorption

2024· article· en· W4394993538 on OpenAlexafffund
Ismael A. Elayan, Laura Rib, Rodrigo A. Mendes, Alex Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNonlinear Optical Materials Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Hybrid functionalDensity functional theoryDipoleRange (aeronautics)Absorption (acoustics)PhysicsChemistryMaterials scienceStatistical physicsComputational chemistryQuantum mechanicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a thorough investigation into the efficacy of 19 density functional theory (DFT) functionals, relative to RI-CC2 results, for computing two-photon absorption (2PA) cross sections (σ 2PA ) and key dipole moments (|μ 00 |, |μ 11 |, |Δμ|, |μ 01 |) for a series of coumarin dyes in the gas-phase. The functionals include different categories, including local density approximation (LDA), generalized gradient approximation (GGA), hybrid-GGA (H-GGA), range-separated hybrid-GGA (RSH-GGA), meta -GGA (M-GGA), and hybrid M-GGA (HM-GGA), with 14 of them being subjected to analysis for the first time with respect to predicting σ 2PA values. Analysis reveals that functionals integrating both short-range (SR) and long-range (LR) corrections, particularly those within the RSH-GGA and HM-GGA classes, outperform the others. Furthermore, the range-separation approach was found more impactful compared to the varying percentages of Hartree–Fock exchange (HF E x ) within different functionals. The functionals traditionally recommended for 2PA do not appear among the top 9 in our study, which is particularly interesting, as these top-performing functionals have not been previously investigated in this context. This list is dominated by M11, QTP variants, ωB97X, ωB97X-V, and M06-2X, surpassing the performance of other functionals, including the commonly used CAM-B3LYP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicNonlinear Optical Materials StudiesFrench-language works237,207