MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998182811 · doi:10.1063/1.3649946

Rapid, accurate calculation of the <i>s</i>-wave scattering length

2011· article· en· W1998182811 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Non-Hermitian Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsExtrapolationLogarithmInterval (graph theory)Function (biology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Boundary (topology)ScatteringBoundary value problemUpper and lower bounds

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transformation of the conventional radial Schrödinger equation defined on the interval r ∈ [0, ∞) into an equivalent form defined on the finite domain y(r) ∈ [a, b] allows the s-wave scattering length a(s) to be exactly expressed in terms of a logarithmic derivative of the transformed wave function φ(y) at the outer boundary point y = b, which corresponds to r = ∞. In particular, for an arbitrary interaction potential that dies off as fast as 1/r(n) for n ≥ 4, the modified wave function φ(y) obtained by using the two-parameter mapping function r(y; ̄r,β) = ̄r[1 + 1/β tan(πy/2)] has no singularities, and a(s) = ̄r[1 + 2/πβ 1/φ(1) dφ(1)/dy]. For a well bound potential with equilibrium distance r(e), the optimal mapping parameters are ̄r ≈ r(e) and β ≈ n/2 - 1. An outward integration procedure based on Johnson's log-derivative algorithm [J. Comp. Phys. 13, 445 (1973)] combined with a Richardson extrapolation procedure is shown to readily yield high precision a(s)-values both for model Lennard-Jones (2n, n) potentials and for realistic published potentials for the Xe-e(-), Cs(2)(aΣ(u)(+)(3)), and (3, 4)He(2)(XΣ(g)(+)(1)) systems. Use of this same transformed Schrödinger equation was previously shown [V. V. Meshkov et al., Phys. Rev. A 78, 052510 (2008)] to ensure the efficient calculation of all bound levels supported by a potential, including those lying extremely close to dissociation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum Mechanics and Non-Hermitian PhysicsFrench-language works237,207