A new paradigm for reproducing and analyzing N-body simulations of planetary systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproducibility of experiments is one of the main principles of the scientific method. However, numerical N-body experiments, especially those of planetary systems, are currently not reproducible. In the most optimistic scenario, they can only be replicated in an approximate or statistical sense. Even if authors share their full source code and initial conditions, differences in compilers, libraries, operating systems or hardware often lead to qualitatively different results. We provide a new set of easy-to-use, open-source tools that address the above issues, allowing for exact (bit-by-bit) reproducibility of N-body experiments. In addition to generating completely reproducible integrations, we show that our framework also offers novel and innovative ways to analyse these simulations. As an example, we present a high-accuracy integration of the Solar system spanning 10 Gyr, requiring several weeks to run on a modern CPU. In our framework, we can not only easily access simulation data at predefined intervals for which we save snapshots, but at any time during the integration. We achieve this by integrating an on-demand reconstructed simulation forward in time from the nearest snapshot. This allows us to extract arbitrary quantities at any point in the saved simulation exactly (bit-by-bit), and within seconds rather than weeks. We believe that the tools we present in this paper offer a new paradigm for how N-body simulations are run, analysed and shared across the community.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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; 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".