MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975224492 · doi:10.1086/375263

Shadowing-based Reliability Decay in Softened <i>n</i> -Body Simulations

2003· article· en· W1975224492 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne B. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSofteningExponential decayParticle (ecology)PhysicsIntegratorParticle numberExponential functionConstant (computer programming)MechanicsClassical mechanicsMathematical analysisMathematicsThermodynamicsVolume (thermodynamics)Computer scienceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A shadow of a numerical solution to a chaotic system is an exact solution to the equations of motion that remains close to the numerical solution for a long time. In a collisionless n -body system, we know that particle motion is governed by the global potential rather than by interparticle interactions. As a result, the trajectory of each individual particle in the system is independently shadowable. It is thus meaningful to measure the number of particles that have shadowable trajectories as a function of time. We find that the number of shadowable particles decays exponentially with time as e -μ t and that for ∈ [~ 0.2, 1] (in units of the local mean interparticle separation ), there is an explicit relationship among the decay constant μ, the time step h of the leapfrog integrator, the softening , and the number of particles N in the simulation. Thus, given N and , it is possible to precompute the time step h necessary to achieve a desired fraction of shadowable particles after a given length of simulation time. We demonstrate that a large fraction of particles remain shadowable over ~100 crossing times even if particles travel up to about of the softening length per time step. However, a sharp decrease in the number of shadowable particles occurs if the time step increases to allow particles to travel farther than the softening length in 1 time step or if the softening is decreased below ~0.2 .

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207