Integral relations and the adiabatic expansion method for<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math>reactions above the breakup threshold: Helium trimers with soft-core potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integral relations formalism introduced in [P. Barletta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 090402 (2009); C. Romero-Redondo et al., Phys. Rev. A 83, 022705 (2011)] and designed to describe $1+N$ reactions is extended here to collision energies above the threshold for the target breakup. These two relations are completely general, and in this work they are used together with the adiabatic expansion method for the description of $1+2$ reactions. The neutron-deuteron breakup, for which benchmark calculations are available, is taken as a test of the method. The $s$-wave collision between the ${}^{4}$He atom and ${}^{4}$He${}_{2}$ dimer above the breakup threshold and the possibility of using soft-core two-body potentials plus a short-range three-body force will be investigated. Comparisons to previous calculations for the three-body recombination and collision dissociation rates will be shown.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".