MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020346719 · doi:10.1063/1.1576496

Group-invariant solutions of relativistic and nonrelativistic models in field theory

2003· article· en· W2020346719 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. Grundland, A. J. Hariton, Véronique Hussin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymmetry groupInvariant (physics)Group (periodic table)OdeMathematicsSingularityGroup theoryAlgebraic numberSymmetry (geometry)Separable spaceLie groupHomogeneous spaceMathematical physicsPure mathematicsTheoretical physicsMathematical analysisPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a method of constructing explicit classes of solutions of the Chaplygin and Born–Infeld systems of equations in 1+1 dimensions. The approach adopted here is based on the symmetry reduction method for PDE’s. A systematic use of the subgroup structure of the invariance group is made to generate symmetry variables. We concentrate only on the case when the symmetry variables are invariants of the subgroups having dimension one. The set of symmetry variables enables us to reduce, after some transformation, the original equations to many possible ODE’s. We describe in detail how a composition of Lie subalgebras and singularity analysis applied to these systems provides us with classes of analytic solutions. Several new types of algebraic, rational and solitonlike solutions (among them kinks, bumps and multiple wave solutions) have been obtained in explicit form. We discuss also the existence of several classes of separable solutions admitted by the Chaplygin and Born–Infeld equations. Some physical interpretation of these results in the areas of fluid dynamics and field theory are given.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207