MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995656029 · doi:10.1063/1.3680607

Numerical Feynman integrals with physically inspired interpolation: Faster convergence and significant reduction of computational cost

2012· article· en· W1995656029 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nikesh S. Dattani

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP Advances · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersClarendon FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOperator (biology)Interpolation (computer graphics)DiscretizationFeynman diagramMathematicsConvergence (economics)Reduction (mathematics)Applied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematical analysisGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most successful methods for calculating reduced density operator dynamics in open quantum systems, that can give numerically exact results, uses Feynman integrals. However, when simulating the dynamics for a given amount of time, the number of time steps that can realistically be used with this method is always limited, therefore one often obtains an approximation of the reduced density operator at a sparse grid of points in time. Instead of relying only on ad hoc interpolation methods (such as splines) to estimate the system density operator in between these points, I propose a method that uses physical information to assist with this interpolation. This method is tested on a physically significant system, on which its use allows important qualitative features of the density operator dynamics to be captured with as little as two time steps in the Feynman integral. This method allows for an enormous reduction in the amount of memory and CPU time required for approximating density operator dynamics within a desired accuracy. Since this method does not change the way the Feynman integral itself is calculated, the value of the density operator approximation at the points in time used to discretize the Feynamn integral will be the same whether or not this method is used, but its approximation in between these points in time is considerably improved by this method. A list of ways in which this proposed method can be further improved is presented in the last section of the article.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP AdvancesSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207