MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416051271 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.15559

The CP2K Program Package Made Simple

2025· preprint· en· W4416051271 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marcella Iannuzzi, Jan Wilhelm, F. Max Stein, Augustin Bussy, Hossam Elgabarty, Dorothea Golze, Anna-Sophia Hehn, Maximilian Graml, Štěpán Marek, Beliz Sertcan Gökmen, Christoph Schran, Harald Forbert, Rustam Z. Khaliullin, Mathieu Taillefumier, Rocco Meli, В. В. Рыбкин, Martin Brehm, Robert R. Schade, Ole Schütt, Johann Valentin Pototschnig, Hossein Mirhosseini, Andreas Knüpfer, Dominik Marx, Matthias Krack, Jürg Hutter, Thomas D. Kühne

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungSächsische AufbaubankDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsFocus (optics)Simple (philosophy)Code (set theory)SoftwareSoftware packageRange (aeronautics)Phase (matter)State (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CP2K is a versatile open-source software package for simulations across a wide range of atomistic systems, from isolated molecules in the gas phase to low-dimensional functional materials and interfaces, as well as highly symmetric crystalline solids, disordered amorphous glasses, and weakly interacting soft-matter systems in the liquid state and in solution. This review highlights CP2K's capabilities for computing both static and dynamical properties using quantum-mechanical and classical simulation methods. In contrast to the accompanying theory and code paper [J. Chem. Phys. 152, 194103 (2020)], the focus here is on the practical usage and applications of CP2K, with underlying theoretical concepts introduced only as needed.

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 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 score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAdvanced Physical and Chemical Molecular InteractionsFrench-language works237,207