MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009228774 · doi:10.1063/1.2906485

Surface-hopping dynamics and decoherence with quantum equilibrium structure

2008· article· en· W2009228774 on OpenAlexaff
Robbie Grunwald, Hyojoon Kim, Raymond Kapral

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum decoherenceQuantum dissipationQuantum dynamicsStatistical physicsDensity matrixQuantumOpen quantum systemQuantum processCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Surface hoppingPhysicsQuantum operationQuantum discordQuantum algorithmQuantum mechanicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In open quantum systems, decoherence occurs through interaction of a quantum subsystem with its environment. The computation of expectation values requires a knowledge of the quantum dynamics of operators and sampling from initial states of the density matrix describing the subsystem and bath. We consider situations where the quantum evolution can be approximated by quantum-classical Liouville dynamics and examine the circumstances under which the evolution can be reduced to surface-hopping dynamics, where the evolution consists of trajectory segments exclusively evolving on single adiabatic surfaces, with probabilistic hops between these surfaces. The justification for the reduction depends on the validity of a Markovian approximation on a bath averaged memory kernel that accounts for quantum coherence in the system. We show that such a reduction is often possible when initial sampling is from either the quantum or classical bath initial distributions. If the average is taken only over the quantum dispersion that broadens the classical distribution, then such a reduction is not always possible.

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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207