MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611309753 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.016012

Pulse shape optimization for electron-positron production in rotating fields

2017· article· en· W2611309753 on OpenAlexafffund
François Fillion‐Gourdeau, F. Hebenstreit, Denis Gagnon, Steve MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D. · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of Waterloo
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesH2020 European Research CouncilCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversité de SherbrookeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPair productionPhysicsDifferential evolutionPolarization (electrochemistry)Electric fieldPositronElectronFourier transformMetaheuristicSpline (mechanical)Computational physicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We optimize the pulse shape and polarization of time-dependent electric fields to maximize the production of electron-positron pairs via strong field quantum electrodynamics processes. The pulse is parametrized in Fourier space by a $B$-spline polynomial basis, which results in a relatively low-dimensional parameter space while still allowing for a large number of electric field modes. The optimization is performed by using a parallel implementation of the differential evolution, one of the most efficient metaheuristic algorithms. The computational performance of the numerical method and the results on pair production are compared with a local multistart optimization algorithm. These techniques allow us to determine the pulse shape and field polarization that maximize the number of produced pairs in computationally accessible regimes.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D/Physical review. D.Same topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207