MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319072553 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.034302

Alternative similarity renormalization group generators in nuclear structure calculations

2014· article· en· W2319072553 on OpenAlexafffund
Nuiok Dicaire, Conor M. B. Omand, P. Navrátil

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaTRIUMF
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHamiltonian (control theory)PhysicsRenormalization groupHarmonic oscillatorNuclear forceNuclear shell modelKinetic energyNucleonNuclear structureOperator (biology)RenormalizationStatistical physicsQuantum mechanicsSHELL modelAtomic physicsMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The similarity renormalization group (SRG) has been successfully applied to soften interactions for ab initio nuclear calculations. In almost all practical applications in nuclear physics, an SRG generator with the kinetic energy operator is used. With this choice, a fast convergence of many-body calculations can be achieved, but at the same time substantial three-body interactions are induced even if one starts from a purely two-nucleon ($\mathit{NN}$) Hamiltonian. Three-nucleon ($3N$) interactions can be handled by modern many-body methods. However, it has been observed that when including initial chiral $3N$ forces in the Hamiltonian, the SRG transformations induce a non-negligible four-nucleon interaction that cannot be currently included in the calculations for technical reasons. Consequently, it is essential to investigate alternative SRG generators that might suppress the induction of many-body forces while at the same time might preserve the good convergence. In this work we test two alternative generators with operators of block structure in the harmonic oscillator basis. In the no-core shell model calculations for ${}^{3}\mathrm{H}$, ${}^{4}\mathrm{He}$, and ${}^{6}\mathrm{Li}$ with chiral $\mathit{NN}$ force, we demonstrate that their performances appear quite promising.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207