MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098169110

Generalized harmonic formulation in spherical symmetry

2010· article· en· W3098169110 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCircular symmetrySpherical harmonicsNumerical relativitySymmetry (geometry)General relativityScalar (mathematics)Zonal spherical harmonicsCartesian coordinate systemTheoretical physicsContext (archaeology)Classical mechanicsEinsteinRotational symmetryDifferential geometryScalar fieldGauge theoryHarmonicMathematical physicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsGeometryMechanicsMathematicsVector spherical harmonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In this pedagogically structured article, we describe a generalized harmonic formulation of the Einstein equations in spherical symmetry which is regular at the origin. The generalized harmonic approach has attracted significant attention in numerical relativity over the past few years, especially as applied to the problem of binary inspiral and merger. A key issue when using the technique is the choice of the gauge source functions, and recent work has provided several prescriptions for gauge drivers designed to evolve these functions in a controlled way. We numerically investigate the parameter spaces of some of these drivers in the context of fully non-linear collapse of a real, massless scalar field, and determine nearly optimal parameter settings for specific situations. Surprisingly, we find that many of the drivers that perform well in 3+1 calculations that use Cartesian coordinates, are considerably less effective in spherical symmetry, where some of them are, in fact, unstable

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society)Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207