MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067521696 · doi:10.1088/0305-4470/35/37/301

An exactly conservative integrator for the<i>n</i>-body problem

2002· article· en· W2067521696 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and General · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegratorHamiltonian systemHamiltonian (control theory)Symplectic geometryPlanarAngular momentumHamiltonian mechanicsNumerical integrationOptimal controlTotal energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two-dimensional n -body problem of classical mechanics is a non-integrable Hamiltonian system for n > 2. Traditional numerical integration algorithms, which are polynomials in the time step, typically lead to systematic drifts in the computed value of the total energy and angular momentum. Even symplectic integration schemes exactly conserve only an approximate Hamiltonian. We present an algorithm that conserves the true Hamiltonian and the total angular momentum to machine precision. It is derived by applying conventional discretizations in a new space obtained by transformation of the dependent variables. We develop the method first for the restricted circular three-body problem, then for the general two-dimensional three-body problem and finally for the planar n -body problem. Jacobi coordinates are used to reduce the two-dimensional n -body problem to an ( n − 1)-body problem that incorporates the constant linear momentum and centre-of-mass constraints. For a four-body choreography, we find that a larger time step can be used with our conservative algorithm than with symplectic and conventional integrators.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralSame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207