Microscopic molecular superfluid response: theory and simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its discovery in 1938, superfluidity has been the subject of much investigation because it provides a unique example of a macroscopic manifestation of quantum mechanics. About 60 years later, scientists successfully observed this phenomenon in the microscopic world though the spectroscopic Andronikashvili experiment in helium nano-droplets. This reduction of scale suggests that not only helium but also para-H2 (pH2) can be a candidate for superfluidity. This expectation is based on the fact that the smaller number of neighbours and surface effects of a finite-size cluster may hinder solidification and promote a liquid-like phase. The first prediction of superfluidity in pH2 clusters was reported in 1991 based on quantum Monte Carlo simulations. The possible superfluidity of pH2 was later indirectly observed in a spectroscopic Andronikashvili experiment in 2000. Since then, a growing number of studies have appeared, and theoretical simulations have been playing a special role because they help guide and interpret experiments. In this review, we go over the theoretical studies of pH2 superfluid clusters since the experiment of 2000. We provide a historical perspective and introduce the basic theoretical formalism along with key experimental advances. We then present illustrative results of the theoretical studies and comment on the possible future developments in the field. We include sufficient theoretical details such that the review can serve as a guide for newcomers to the field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".