pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18142 · v1 · pith:CWMJPXY6new · submitted 2026-05-18 · ⚛️ nucl-th · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Systematic study of one-point kinetic energy density functionals for atomic nuclei

Tian Shuai Shang , Jian Li , Haozhao Liang , Xinhui Wu , Cheng Ma , Wenhui Mi , Xuecheng Shao , Yanchao Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 00:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords orbital-free density functional theorykinetic energy density functionalsgeneralized gradient approximationnuclear binding energiesliquid drop modelshell effectsatomic nuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

Re-optimizing parameters of electron-based kinetic functionals on nuclear data yields consistent 13 MeV error across GGA forms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper benchmarks 36 one-point kinetic energy functionals originally for electrons and tests their use in orbital-free DFT for atomic nuclei. Direct application of electron parameters gives varying and sometimes unphysical results. After re-optimizing the parameters to fit nuclear densities, different generalized gradient approximation forms all reach a similar root-mean-square error of about 13 MeV. This suggests the functionals have modeled the smooth, liquid-drop-like part of nuclear binding, leaving oscillations that track magic numbers and shell effects.

Core claim

Through parameter re-optimization targeting nuclear densities, different mathematical forms of generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals converge to a consistent root-mean-square error of approximately 13 MeV. From a physical perspective, this consistent behavior signifies that the optimized semi-local GGAs have successfully captured the macroscopic, liquid-drop-like background of the nucleus, while the residual deviations appear as periodic oscillations at the magic numbers that could reflect the quantum shell effects.

What carries the argument

Generalized gradient approximation (GGA) kinetic energy density functionals re-optimized on nuclear densities to serve as one-point approximations in orbital-free density functional theory.

If this is right

  • Different GGA mathematical forms achieve comparable accuracy after optimization.
  • The optimized functionals capture the macroscopic liquid-drop background of nuclei.
  • Residual errors show periodic behavior at magic numbers, potentially linked to quantum shell effects.
  • Orbital-free DFT becomes more viable for nuclear applications with these functionals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The convergence across forms implies that the macroscopic nuclear properties are robustly captured independent of exact functional details.
  • Further tests on nuclei outside the optimization set would confirm if the model generalizes or risks overfitting.
  • These functionals could enable efficient calculations of nuclear properties without solving for individual orbitals.

Load-bearing premise

Re-optimizing parameters of electron-derived functionals on nuclear data produces a transferable model rather than one overfit to the specific nuclei in the fit.

What would settle it

Evaluating the root-mean-square error using the re-optimized parameters on a validation set of nuclei not included in the parameter optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18142 by Cheng Ma, Haozhao Liang, Jian Li, Tian Shuai Shang, Wenhui Mi, Xinhui Wu, Xuecheng Shao, Yanchao Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: displays the enhancement factor Fs(s) as a function of the reduced gradient s before and after optimization. For the VT84F and LKT functionals (Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), the difference between Fs(s) and the von Weizsäcker (vW) limit (Fs(s) − 5 3 s 2 ) is plotted. The mathematical forms of these functionals satisfy strict boundary conditions: they reduce to the Thomas-Fermi limit as s → 0 and approach the vW li… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: compares the enhancement factors Fs(s) before and after optimization. The original E00 (blue solid) and TF5W (red dotted) exhibit noticeable dif￾ferences for s ≳ 1, consistent with their different base￾line RMSE values in Table I. Remarkably, after opti￾mization, the two curves (E00∗ , blue dashed; TFλW, red dashed dot) are nearly indistinguishable over the plotted range, with λ optimized from 0.2 in TF5W … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

To explore the applicability of orbital-free density functional theory (OF-DFT) in nuclear physics, we perform a systematic benchmark of 36 one-point kinetic energy density functionals, which are originally developed for electron systems in condensed matter physics. It is found that the direct use of the original parameters for electron systems leads to inconsistent performance, with certain functionals exhibiting physically unacceptable asymptotic behaviors. However, through parameter re-optimization targeting nuclear densities, different mathematical forms of generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals converge to a consistent root-mean-square error of approximately 13 MeV. From a physical perspective, this consistent behavior signifies that the optimized semi-local GGAs have successfully captured the macroscopic, liquid-drop-like background of the nucleus, while the residual deviations appear as periodic oscillations at the magic numbers that could reflect the quantum shell effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript benchmarks 36 one-point kinetic energy density functionals originally developed for electrons in condensed-matter physics, testing their applicability to atomic nuclei via orbital-free DFT. Direct use of the electron-derived parameters produces inconsistent results, including unphysical asymptotic behaviors in some cases. After re-optimizing the parameters to target nuclear densities, the different GGA functional forms converge to a consistent root-mean-square error of approximately 13 MeV. The authors interpret this convergence as evidence that the optimized semi-local GGAs have captured the macroscopic liquid-drop-like background of the nucleus, while the residual deviations exhibit periodic oscillations at magic numbers that may reflect quantum shell effects.

Significance. If the re-optimization isolates transferable macroscopic physics rather than dataset-specific features, the work would demonstrate a viable route for separating average nuclear trends from shell corrections within an orbital-free framework. The systematic comparison across 36 functionals from varied mathematical forms is a clear strength, providing a broad survey that could guide future adaptations of condensed-matter functionals to nuclear systems. This could support more efficient large-scale nuclear calculations once the robustness of the procedure is established.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The central claim that re-optimized GGAs converge to ~13 MeV RMSE and thereby capture the liquid-drop background is load-bearing for the physical interpretation. However, the abstract supplies no information on the nuclear dataset (number of nuclei, mass range, or selection), the optimization algorithm, convergence criteria, or any cross-validation/out-of-sample tests. Without these details the observed consistency across forms could reflect shared flexibility under identical data constraints rather than recovery of volume/surface physics.
  2. Results (RMSE reporting): The ~13 MeV RMSE is presented without error bars, uncertainty quantification, or explicit comparison of performance on nuclei excluded from the optimization set. This directly affects the claim that residuals are shell-effect oscillations rather than fitting artifacts, as the interpretation requires evidence of transferability beyond the fitted data.
minor comments (2)
  1. A summary table listing the 36 functionals, their original electron parameters, and the re-optimized nuclear values would improve reproducibility and allow direct comparison of the mathematical forms.
  2. Clarify the precise definition of the one-point kinetic energy density functionals and the nuclear density target (e.g., whether it is the total binding energy or the density profile) at first mention to avoid ambiguity for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, proposing revisions where appropriate to improve clarity and support for our interpretations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The central claim that re-optimized GGAs converge to ~13 MeV RMSE and thereby capture the liquid-drop background is load-bearing for the physical interpretation. However, the abstract supplies no information on the nuclear dataset (number of nuclei, mass range, or selection), the optimization algorithm, convergence criteria, or any cross-validation/out-of-sample tests. Without these details the observed consistency across forms could reflect shared flexibility under identical data constraints rather than recovery of volume/surface physics.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional details to better support the central claim and address potential concerns about fitting flexibility. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the abstract to specify the nuclear dataset (including the number of nuclei, mass range, and selection criteria), briefly describe the optimization algorithm and convergence criteria, and note the observed consistency across the 36 distinct GGA forms as evidence that the ~13 MeV RMSE reflects macroscopic liquid-drop physics rather than dataset-specific artifacts. We will also clarify that explicit cross-validation was not performed but that the convergence itself provides supporting indication of robustness. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results (RMSE reporting): The ~13 MeV RMSE is presented without error bars, uncertainty quantification, or explicit comparison of performance on nuclei excluded from the optimization set. This directly affects the claim that residuals are shell-effect oscillations rather than fitting artifacts, as the interpretation requires evidence of transferability beyond the fitted data.

    Authors: We acknowledge that uncertainty quantification and explicit out-of-sample comparisons would strengthen the transferability argument. In the revision, we will add error bars to the RMSE values based on the variation observed across the different optimized functionals and expand the discussion in the results section to address potential fitting artifacts. The residuals' alignment with magic numbers is consistent with established shell effects in nuclear physics, and the convergence to similar performance across mathematically distinct GGA forms supports that the ~13 MeV level captures the macroscopic background. While a full cross-validation on excluded nuclei was not included in the original study, we will add a limitations paragraph discussing transferability and the robustness implied by the multi-functional agreement. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Re-optimization of GGA parameters on nuclear densities risks capturing dataset-specific features rather than transferable liquid-drop background

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "through parameter re-optimization targeting nuclear densities, different mathematical forms of generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals converge to a consistent root-mean-square error of approximately 13 MeV. From a physical perspective, this consistent behavior signifies that the optimized semi-local GGAs have successfully captured the macroscopic, liquid-drop-like background of the nucleus, while the residual deviations appear as periodic oscillations at the magic numbers that could reflect the quantum shell effects."

    The reported RMSE value and the claim of having captured the liquid-drop background are obtained only after explicit parameter re-optimization on nuclear densities; the performance numbers and physical interpretation are therefore the direct output of the fitting procedure rather than independent predictions or first-principles results.

full rationale

The paper performs a benchmark by re-optimizing parameters of electron-derived functionals directly on nuclear density data, then reports the resulting RMSE and interprets the consistency across GGA forms as evidence that the functionals have captured the macroscopic liquid-drop background. This performance metric and physical interpretation are direct products of the optimization procedure on the target dataset. The abstract provides no information on training-set size, cross-validation, or out-of-sample tests, so the observed convergence could arise from the flexibility of the GGA ansatz under a shared data constraint rather than independent recovery of volume/surface physics. This constitutes a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern for the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that electron-derived kinetic functionals can be made useful for nuclei by re-fitting a modest number of parameters; this introduces multiple free parameters whose values are determined by the nuclear data rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • re-optimized GGA coefficients
    The abstract states that parameters were re-optimized targeting nuclear densities; each of the 36 functionals therefore carries fitted coefficients that are not taken from the original electron literature.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Kinetic energy density functionals developed for electrons remain mathematically applicable to nucleons once parameters are adjusted to nuclear data.
    Invoked when the authors apply the 36 functionals to nuclei and interpret the re-optimized results as capturing liquid-drop behavior.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1492 out tokens · 38009 ms · 2026-05-20T00:22:49.225070+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    through parameter re-optimization targeting nuclear densities, different mathematical forms of generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functionals converge to a consistent root-mean-square error of approximately 13 MeV

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vautherin and D

    D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Hartree-fock calcu- lations with skyrme’s interaction. i. spherical nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972)

    work page 1972

  2. [2]

    Dechargé and D

    J. Dechargé and D. Gogny, Hartree-fock-bogolyubov calculations with the d1 effective interaction on spher- ical nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 21, 1568 (1980)

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    Ring, Relativistic mean field theory in finite nuclei, Prog

    P. Ring, Relativistic mean field theory in finite nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 193 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Meng and P

    J. Meng and P. Ring, Relativistic hartree-bogoliubov description of the neutron halo in 11li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3963 (1996)

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Self- consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Vretenar, A

    D. Vretenar, A. V. Afanasjev, G. A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Relativistic hartree-bogoliubov theory: static and dynamic aspects of exotic nuclear structure, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S. G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Relativistic continuum hartree bogoliubov theory for ground-state properties of ex- otic nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 470 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Stone and P.-G

    J. Stone and P.-G. Reinhard, The skyrme interaction in finite nuclei and nuclear matter, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 58, 587 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    J. Meng, J. Peng, S. Q. Zhang, and P. W. Zhao, Progress on tilted axis cranking covariant density functional theory for nuclear magnetic and antimag- netic rotation, Front. Phys. 8, 55 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Nakatsukasa, K

    T. Nakatsukasa, K. Matsuyanagi, M. Matsuo, and K. Yabana, Time-dependent density-functional de- scription of nuclear dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 045004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016)

    J. Meng, Relativistic Density Functional for Nuclear Structure (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2016)

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Zhang, M.-K

    K. Zhang, M.-K. Cheoun, Y.-B. Choi, P. S. Chong, J. Dong, Z. Dong, X. Du, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, C. Heo, M. C. Ho, E. J. In, S. Kim, Y. Kim, C.- H. Lee, J. Lee, H. Li, Z. Li, T. Luo, J. Meng, M.-H. Mun, Z. Niu, C. Pan, P. Papakonstantinou, X. Shang, C. Shen, G. Shen, W. Sun, X.-X. Sun, C. K. Tam, Thaivayongnou, C. Wang, X. Wang, S. H. Wong, J. Wu, X. W...

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    P. Guo, X. Cao, K. Chen, Z. Chen, M.-K. Cheoun, Y.- B. Choi, P. C. Lam, W. Deng, J. Dong, P. Du, X. Du, K. Duan, X. Fan, W. Gao, L. Geng, E. Ha, X.-T. He, J. Hu, J. Huang, K. Huang, Y. Huang, Z. Huang, K. D. Hyung, H. Y. Chan, X. Jiang, S. Kim, Y. Kim, C.-H. Lee, J. Lee, J. Li, M. Li, Z. Li, Z. Li, Z. Lian, H. Liang, L. Liu, X. Lu, Z.-R. Liu, J. Meng, Z. ...

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965)

    work page 1965

  15. [15]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous electron gas, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964)

    work page 1964

  16. [16]

    Erler, N

    J. Erler, N. Birge, M. Kortelainen, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, A. M. Perhac, and M. Stoitsov, The limits of the nuclear landscape, Nature 486, 509 (2012)

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Liang, J

    H. Liang, J. Meng, and S.-G. Zhou, Hidden pseu- dospin and spin symmetries and their origins in atomic nuclei, Physics Reports 570, 1 (2015) , hidden pseudospin and spin symmetries and their origins in atomic nuclei

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Bulgac, P

    A. Bulgac, P. Magierski, K. J. Roche, and I. Stetcu, Induced fission of 240Pu within a real-time micro- scopic framework, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 122504 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    X. W. Xia, The limits of the nuclear landscape explored by the relativistic continuum Hartree– Bogoliubov theory, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 121– 122, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Li and J

    J. Li and J. Meng, Nuclear magnetic moments in co- 9 variant density functional theory, Front. Phys. 13, 132109 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    S. H. Shen, H. Z. Liang, W. H. Long, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Towards an ab initio covariant density func- tional theory for nuclear structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 109, 103713 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Shang, Q

    T. Shang, Q. Zhao, and J. Li, Pseudospin symme- try: Microscopic origin of the ground-state inversion in neutron-rich odd-a cu isotopes, Phys. Lett. B 850, 138527 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    H. H. Xie, J. Li, Y. L. Yang, and P. W. Zhao, Charge radii of calcium isotopes within relativistic density functional theory: The finite size of the nucleon and quadrupole shape-fluctuation effects, Phys. Rev. C 112, L021303 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    H. Tong, P. W. Zhao, and J. Meng, Symmetry energy at supra-saturation densities via the gravitational waves from gw170817, Phys. Rev. C 101, 035802 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    W. H. Long, B. Y. Sun, K. Hagino, and H. Sagawa, Hyperon effects in covariant density functional theory and recent astrophysical observations, Phys. Rev. C 85, 025806 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    N. B. Zhang, S. Y. Wang, B. Qi, J. H. Gao, and B. Y. Sun, Neutrino emissivity of the nucleon direct urca process for rotational traditional and hyperonic neu- tron stars, Chin. Phys. C 41, 075101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Pęcak, A

    D. Pęcak, A. Zdanowicz, N. Chamel, P. Magierski, and G. Wlazłowski, Time-dependent nuclear energy- density functional theory toolkit for neutron star crust: Dynamics of a nucleus in a neutron superfluid, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041054 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    M. Levy, J. P. Perdew, and V. Sahni, Exact differen- tial equation for the density and ionization energy of a many-particle system, Phys. Rev. A 30, 2745 (1984)

    work page 1984

  29. [29]

    W. Mi, K. Luo, S. B. Trickey, and M. Pavanello, Orbital-free density functional theory: An attrac- tive electronic structure method for large-scale first- principles simulations, Chem. Rev. 123, 12039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Y. H. Chu, B. K. Jennings, and M. Brack, Nuclear binding energies and liquid drop parameters in the extended thomas-fermi approximation, Phys. Lett. B 68, 407 (1977)

    work page 1977

  31. [31]

    Centelles, P

    M. Centelles, P. Schuck, and X. V. nas, Thomas–fermi theory for atomic nuclei revisited, Ann. Phys. 322, 363 (2007)

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    Colò and K

    G. Colò and K. Hagino, Orbital-free density func- tional theory: Differences and similarities between electronic and nuclear systems, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2023, 103D01 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Brack and P

    M. Brack and P. Quentin, Self-consistent average density matrices and the strutinsky energy theorem, Phys. Lett. B 56, 421 (1975)

    work page 1975

  34. [34]

    Brack, C

    M. Brack, C. Guet, and H. B. Håkansson, Selfcon- sistent semiclassical description of average nuclear properties—a link between microscopic and macro- scopic models, Phys. Rep. 123, 275 (1985)

    work page 1985

  35. [35]

    V. M. Strutinsky, Shell effects in nuclear masses and deformation energies, Nucl. Phys. A 95, 420 (1967)

    work page 1967

  36. [36]

    X. H. Wu, G. Colò, K. Hagino, and P. W. Zhao, Non- local orbital-free density functional theory incorporat- ing nuclear shell effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 092501 (2026)

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    X. H. Wu, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Nuclear energy density functionals from machine learning, Phys. Rev. C 105, L031303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Hizawa, K

    N. Hizawa, K. Hagino, and K. Yoshida, Analysis of a skyrme energy density functional with deep learning, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Y. Y. Chen and X. H. Wu, Machine learning nuclear orbital-free density functional based on thomas–fermi approach, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2450012 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    X. H. Wu, Z. X. Ren, and P. W. Zhao, Machine learn- ing orbital-free density functional theory resolves shell effects in deformed nuclei, Commun. Phys. 8, 316 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    X. H. Wu, Z. X. Ren, H. Z. Liang, and P. W. Zhao, Relativistic orbital-free kinetic energy density func- tional for one-particle nuclear systems, Phys. Rev. C 112, 064319 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    C. J. Lv, T. Y. Wu, X. H. Wu, G. Colò, and K. Hagino, Basis representation for nuclear densities from principal component analysis, Phys. Lett. B 874, 140283 (2026)

    work page 2026

  43. [43]

    Y. A. Wang and E. A. Carter, Orbital-free kinetic- energy density functional theory, in Theoretical Meth- ods in Condensed Phase Chemistry , edited by S. D. Schwartz (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2002) pp. 117–184

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    W. C. Witt, B. G. del Rio, J. M. Dieterich, and E. A. Carter, Orbital-free density functional theory for ma- terials research, J. Mater. Res. 33, 777 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    E. V. L. na and V. V. Karasiev, Kinetic energy func- tionals: History, challenges and prospects, in Reviews of Modern Quantum Chemistry , pp. 612–665

    work page

  46. [46]

    Chen and A

    H. Chen and A. Zhou, Orbital-free density functional theory for molecular structure calculations, Numer. Math. Theor. Meth. Appl. 1 (2008)

    work page 2008

  47. [47]

    V. V. Karasiev, D. Chakraborty, and S. B. Trickey, Progress on new approaches to old ideas: Orbital-free density functionals, in Many-Electron Approaches in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics: A Multidisci- plinary View , edited by V. Bach and L. Delle Site (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014) pp. 113–134

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    Tran and T

    F. Tran and T. A. Wesolowski, Semilocal approxi- mations for the kinetic energy, in Recent Progress in Orbital-free Density Functional Theory , pp. 429–442

    work page

  49. [49]

    L. H. Thomas, The calculation of atomic fields, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 23, 542–548 (1927)

    work page 1927

  50. [50]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Note on exchange phenomena in the thomas atom, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 26, 376–385 (1930)

    work page 1930

  51. [51]

    C. F. v. Weizsäcker, Zur theorie der kernmassen, Z. Phys. 96, 431 (1935)

    work page 1935

  52. [52]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Quantum density oscilla- tions in an inhomogeneous electron gas, Phys. Rev. 137, A1697 (1965)

    work page 1965

  53. [53]

    N. H. March, The thomas-fermi approximation in quantum mechanics, Adv. Phys. 6, 1 (1957)

    work page 1957

  54. [54]

    S. K. Ghosh and R. G. Parr, Density‐determined or- thonormal orbital approach to atomic energy func- tionalsa), J. Chem. Phys. 82, 3307 (1985)

    work page 1985

  55. [55]

    L. W. Wang and M. P. Teter, Kinetic-energy func- tional of the electron density, Phys. Rev. B 45, 13196 (1992)

    work page 1992

  56. [56]

    Q. Xu, Y. Wang, and Y. Ma, Nonlocal kinetic energy density functional via line integrals and its application to orbital-free density functional theory, Phys. Rev. B 100, 205132 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    W. Mi, X. Shao, C. Su, Y. Zhou, S. Zhang, Q. Li, H. Wang, L. Zhang, M. Miao, Y. Wang, and Y. Ma, 10 Atlas: A real-space finite-difference implementation of orbital-free density functional theory, Comput. Phys. Commun. 200, 87 (2016)

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    W. Mi, A. Genova, and M. Pavanello, Nonlocal kinetic energy functionals by functional integration, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 184107 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Mi and M

    W. Mi and M. Pavanello, Orbital-free density func- tional theory correctly models quantum dots when asymptotics, nonlocality, and nonhomogeneity are ac- counted for, Phys. Rev. B 100, 041105 (2019)

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    Mi and M

    W. Mi and M. Pavanello, Nonlocal subsystem den- sity functional theory, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 272 (2020)

    work page 2020

  61. [61]

    X. Shao, W. Mi, and M. Pavanello, Revised huang- carter nonlocal kinetic energy functional for semicon- ductors and their surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 104, 045118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    X. Shao, K. Jiang, W. Mi, A. Genova, and M. Pa- vanello, Dftpy: An efficient and object-oriented plat- form for orbital-free dft simulations, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 11, e1482 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Q. Xu, J. Lv, Y. Wang, and Y. Ma, Nonlocal kinetic energy density functionals for isolated systems ob- tained via local density approximation kernels, Phys. Rev. B 101, 045110 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Q. Xu, C. Ma, W. Mi, Y. Wang, and Y. Ma, Re- cent advancements and challenges in orbital-free den- sity functional theory, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 14, e1724 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    M. Chen, M. Pavanello, W. Mi, M. Ihara, and S. Manzhos, Machine learning-enhanced orbital-free density functional theory, Journal of Chemical The- ory and Computation 22, 3127 (2026)

    work page 2026

  66. [66]

    C. H. Hodges, Quantum corrections to the thomas– fermi approximation—the kirzhnits method, Cana- dian Journal of Physics 51, 1428 (1973)

    work page 1973

  67. [67]

    Dobaczewski, H

    J. Dobaczewski, H. Flocard, and J. Treiner, Hartree- fock-bogolyubov description of nuclei near the neutron-drip line, Nucl. Phys. A 422, 103 (1984)

    work page 1984

  68. [68]

    D. M. Rodriguez and S. B. Trickey, Post-hartree-fock atomic kinetic energies data glossary (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    J. P. Perdew and L. A. Constantin, Laplacian-level density functionals for the kinetic energy density and exchange-correlation energy, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155109 (2007)

    work page 2007

  70. [70]

    Xia and E

    J. Xia and E. A. Carter, Single-point kinetic energy density functionals: A pointwise kinetic energy den- sity analysis and numerical convergence investigation, Phys. Rev. B 91, 045124 (2015)

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    T. Wang, K. Luo, and R. Lu, Semilocal kinetic energy density functionals on atoms and diatoms, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 20, 5176 (2024) . 11 TABLE IV. Kinetic energy data calculated using 36 one-point KEDFs based on HF densities (in MeV), with the first row representing the HF kinetic energy results. Functional 16O 20Ne 24Mg 28Si 32S 36A...

    work page 2024