MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416144699 · doi:10.1063/5.0294785

cQTP25: A new exchange–correlation functional for core-electron ionization energy

2025· article· en· W4416144699 on OpenAlexafffund
Rodrigo A. Mendes, Nathanael J. King, Alex Brown, Rodney J. Bartlett, Mariusz Kłobukowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDensity functional theoryIonizationIonization energyOrbital-free density functional theoryElectronSet (abstract data type)Energy (signal processing)Core (optical fiber)Hybrid functional

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new exchange-correlation (XC) functional inspired by correlated orbital theory and designed to enhance the accuracy of core-electron ionization energy predictions as measured by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. This functional, referred to as cQTP25, differs from other Quantum Theory Project (QTP) functionals by optimizing the range-separation parameters through a targeted restriction of the orbital space to core 1s electrons only. We benchmarked cQTP25 against a diverse set of XC functionals spanning multiple rungs of Jacob's ladder in Density Functional Theory (DFT). The performance was evaluated primarily using the relation IP1s = -ɛ1s, but for completeness, we also computed core ionization potentials using the ΔDFT method. All calculations accounted for both non-relativistic and relativistic corrections. Overall, within Koopmans's framework, the QTP functionals perform best, and specifically cQTP25. The exception is the ΔDFT analysis, where M11, ωB97X, and BHandHLYP are more accurate and cQTP25 ranks fourth.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence AnalysisFrench-language works237,207