MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969530915 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.81.054106

Coarse-grained belief propagation for simulation of interacting quantum systems at all temperatures

2010· article· en· W1969530915 on OpenAlexaff
Ersen Bilgin, David Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical physicsBelief propagationQuantum entanglementQuantumIsing modelPhase diagramSpin (aerodynamics)PhysicsQuantum mechanicsPhase (matter)Computer scienceAlgorithmThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We continue our numerical study of quantum belief propagation initiated in [Phys. Rev. A 77, 052318 (2008)]. We demonstrate how the method can be expressed in terms of an effective thermal potential that materializes when the system presents quantum correlations, but is insensitive to classical correlations. The thermal potential provides an efficient means to assess the precision of belief propagation on graphs with no loops. We illustrate these concepts using the one-dimensional quantum Ising model and compare our results with exact solutions. We also use the method to study the transverse field quantum Ising spin glass for which we obtain a phase diagram that is largely in agreement with the one obtained in [Phys. Rev. B 78, 134424 (2008).] using a different approach. Finally, we introduce the coarse-grained belief propagation (CGBP) algorithm to improve belief propagation at low temperatures. This method combines the reliability of belief propagation at high temperatures with the ability of entanglement renormalization to efficiently describe low-energy subspaces of quantum systems with local interactions. With CGBP, thermodynamic properties of quantum systems can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy at all temperatures.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207