MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159546787 · doi:10.1063/5.0047090

Comparison of the multi-layer multi-configuration time-dependent Hartree (ML-MCTDH) method and the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) for ground state properties of linear rotor chains

2021· article· en· W3159546787 on OpenAlexafffund
Samrit Mainali, Fabien Gatti, Dmitri Iouchtchenko, Pierre–Nicholas Roy, Hans‐Dieter Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Research ChairsShared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing NetworkCanada Foundation for InnovationCompute Canada
KeywordsDensity matrix renormalization groupHartreeQuantum entanglementGround stateHamiltonian (control theory)QuantumPhysicsQuantum mechanicsStatistical physicsMathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We demonstrate the applicability of the Multi-Layer Multi-Configuration Time-Dependent Hartree (ML-MCTDH) method to the problem of computing ground states of one-dimensional chains of linear rotors with dipolar interactions. Specifically, we successfully obtain energies, entanglement entropies, and orientational correlations that are in agreement with the Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG), which has been previously used for this system. We find that the entropies calculated by ML-MCTDH for larger system sizes contain nonmonotonicity, as expected in the vicinity of a second-order quantum phase transition between ordered and disordered rotor states. We observe that this effect remains when all couplings besides nearest-neighbor are omitted from the Hamiltonian, which suggests that it is not sensitive to the rate of decay of the interactions. In contrast to DMRG, which is tailored to the one-dimensional case, ML-MCTDH (as implemented in the Heidelberg MCTDH package) requires more computational time and memory, although the requirements are still within reach of commodity hardware. The numerical convergence and computational demand of two practical implementations of ML-MCTDH and DMRG are presented in detail for various combinations of system parameters.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207