MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966065177 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2503

High-order symplectic integrators for planetary dynamics and their implementation in rebound

2019· article· en· W2966065177 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanno Rein, Daniel Tamayo, Garett Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsIntegratorSymplectic integratorPhysicsSymplectic geometryBenchmark (surveying)Variety (cybernetics)Variational integratorOrder (exchange)Applied mathematicsAlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysisMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Direct N-body simulations and symplectic integrators are effective tools to study the long-term evolution of planetary systems. The Wisdom–Holman (WH) integrator in particular has been used extensively in planetary dynamics as it allows for large time-steps at good accuracy. One can extend the WH method to achieve even higher accuracy using several different approaches. In this paper, we survey integrators developed by Wisdom et al., Laskar & Robutel, and Blanes et al. Since some of these methods are harder to implement and not as readily available to astronomers compared to the standard WH method, they are not used as often. This is somewhat unfortunate given that in typical simulations it is possible to improve the accuracy by up to six orders of magnitude (!) compared to the standard WH method without the need for any additional force evaluations. To change this, we implement a variety of high-order symplectic methods in the freely available N-body integrator rebound. In this paper, we catalogue these methods, discuss their differences, describe their error scalings, and benchmark their speed using our implementations.

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)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207