ANALYSIS OF ROUND OFF ERRORS WITH REVERSIBILITY TEST AS A DYNAMICAL INDICATOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the divergence of orbits and the reversibility error for discrete time dynamical systems. These two quantities are used to explore the behavior of the global error induced by round off in the computation of orbits. The similarity of results found for any system we have analyzed suggests the use of the reversibility error, whose computation is straightforward since it does not require the knowledge of the exact orbit, as a dynamical indicator. The statistics of fluctuations induced by round off for an ensemble of initial conditions has been compared with the results obtained in the case of random perturbations. Significant differences are observed in the case of regular orbits due to the correlations of round off error, whereas the results obtained for the chaotic case are nearly the same. Both the reversibility error and the orbit divergence computed for the same number of iterations on the whole phase space provide an insight on the local dynamical properties with a detail comparable with other dynamical indicators based on variational methods such as the finite time maximum Lyapunov characteristic exponent, the mean exponential growth factor of nearby orbits and the smaller alignment index. For 2D symplectic maps, the differentiation between regular and chaotic regions is well full-filled. For 4D symplectic maps, the structure of the resonance web as well as the nearby weakly chaotic regions are accurately described.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".