MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736865452 · doi:10.1090/tran/7540

Ground states of two-component attractive Bose-Einstein condensates II: Semi-trivial limit behavior

2019· article· en· W2736865452 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsUniquenessLimit (mathematics)HomogeneousContinuationLimit pointPoint (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a continuation of our prior article, we study new pattern formations of ground states $(u_1,u_2)$ for two-component Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) with homogeneous trapping potentials in $\mathbb {R}^2$, where the intraspecies interaction $(-a,-b)$ and the interspecies interaction $-\beta$ are both attractive, i.e., $a$, $b$, and $\beta$ are all positive. If $0<b<a^*:=\|w\|^2_2$ and $0<\beta <a^*$ are fixed, where $w$ is the unique positive solution of $\Delta w-w+w^3=0$ in $\mathbb {R}^2$, the semi-trivial behavior of $(u_1,u_2)$ as $a\nearrow a^*$ is proved in the sense that $u_1$ concentrates at a unique point and while $u_2\equiv 0$ in $\mathbb {R}^2$. However, if $0<b<a^*$ and $a^*\le \beta <\beta ^*=a^*+\sqrt {(a^*-a)(a^*-b)}$, the refined spike profile and the uniqueness of $(u_1,u_2)$ as $a\nearrow a^*$ are analyzed, where $(u_1,u_2)$ must be unique, $u_1$ concentrates at a unique point, and meanwhile $u_2$ can either blow up or vanish, depending on how $\beta$ approaches $a^*$.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein CondensatesFrench-language works237,207