MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973171676 · doi:10.1063/1.5128076

Benchmarking semiclassical and perturbative methods for real-time simulations of cavity-bound emission and interference

2019· article· en· W2973171676 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStrong Light-Matter Interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersFP7 Ideas: European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSemiclassical physicsInterference (communication)Coupling (piping)Benchmark (surveying)QuantumSurface hoppingSelection (genetic algorithm)Non-perturbative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We benchmark a selection of semiclassical and perturbative dynamics techniques by investigating the correlated evolution of a cavity-bound atomic system to assess their applicability to study problems involving strong light-matter interactions in quantum cavities. The model system of interest features spontaneous emission, interference, and strong coupling behavior and necessitates the consideration of vacuum fluctuations and correlated light-matter dynamics. We compare a selection of approximate dynamics approaches including fewest switches surface hopping (FSSH), multitrajectory Ehrenfest dynamics, linearized semiclassical dynamics, and partially linearized semiclassical dynamics. Furthermore, investigating self-consistent perturbative methods, we apply the Bogoliubov-Born-Green-Kirkwood-Yvon hierarchy in the second Born approximation. With the exception of fewest switches surface hopping, all methods provide a reasonable level of accuracy for the correlated light-matter dynamics, with most methods lacking the capacity to fully capture interference effects.

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)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicStrong Light-Matter InteractionsFrench-language works237,207