MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416674587 · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.5c01210

Planted Solutions in Quantum Chemistry: Generating Non-Trivial Hamiltonians with Known Ground States

2025· article· en· W4416674587 on OpenAlexafffund
L.W. Wang, Joshua T. Cantin, Smik Patel, Ignacio Loaiza, Artur F. Izmaylov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMicrosystems Technology Office
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)Electronic structureDensity matrix renormalization groupBenchmark (surveying)Ground stateQuantumBenchmarkingRenormalization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generating large, nontrivial quantum chemistry test problems with known ground-state solutions remains a core challenge for benchmarking electronic structure methods. Inspired by planted-solution techniques from combinatorial optimization, we introduce four classes of Hamiltonians with embedded, retrievable ground states. These Hamiltonians mimic realistic electronic structure problems, support adjustable complexity, and are derived from reference systems. Crucially, their ground-state energies can be computed exactly, provided the construction parameters are known. To obscure this structure and control perceived complexity, we introduce techniques such as killer operators, balance operators, and random orbital rotations. We showcase this framework using examples based on homogeneous catalysts of industrial relevance and validate tunable difficulty through density matrix renormalization group convergence behavior. Beyond enabling scalable, ground-truth benchmark generation, our approach offers a controlled setting to explore the limitations of electronic structure methods and investigate how Hamiltonian structure influences ground state solution difficulty.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Theory and ComputationSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207