MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011364581 · doi:10.1142/s0219633613400014

EXPONENTIAL PROPAGATORS (INTEGRATORS) FOR THE TIME-DEPENDENT SCHRÖDINGER EQUATION

2013· article· en· W2011364581 on OpenAlexafffund
André D. Bandrauk, Huizhong Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsPropagatorExponential functionSchrödinger equationPartial differential equationTime derivativeMathematicsImaginary timeMatrix exponentialPhysicsDifferential equationMathematical analysisQuantumQuantum mechanicsMathematical physicsQuantum dynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time-dependent Schrödinger Equation (TDSE) is a parabolic partial differential equation (PDE) comparable to a diffusion equation but with imaginary time. Due to its first order time derivative, exponential integrators or propagators are natural methods to describe evolution in time of the TDSE, both for time-independent and time-dependent potentials. Two splitting methods based on Fer and/or Magnus expansions allow for developing unitary factorizations of exponentials with different accuracies in the time step △t. The unitary factorization of exponentials to high order accuracy depends on commutators of kinetic energy operators with potentials. Fourth-order accuracy propagators can involve negative or complex time steps, or real time steps only but with gradients of potentials, i.e. forces. Extending the propagators of TDSE's to imaginary time allows to also apply these methods to classical many-body dynamics, and quantum statistical mechanics of molecular systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations69
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theoretical and Computational ChemistrySame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207