MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204057087 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2813

On the Impact of the Numerical Method on Magnetic Reconnection and Particle Acceleration -- I. The MHD case

2021· article· en· W3204057087 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eleonora Puzzoni, A. Mignone, G. Bodo

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut sur la Nutrition et les Aliments Fonctionnels
KeywordsPhysicsMagnetohydrodynamicsMagnetic reconnectionCurrent sheetClassical mechanicsParticle accelerationTearingMechanicsAccelerationMagnetic fieldQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present 2D MHD numerical simulations of tearing-unstable current sheets coupled to a population of non-thermal test-particles, in order to address the problem of numerical convergence with respect to grid resolution, numerical method and physical resistivity. Numerical simulations are performed with the PLUTO code for astrophysical fluid dynamics through different combinations of Riemann solvers, reconstruction methods, grid resolutions at various Lundquist numbers. The constrained transport method is employed to control the divergence-free condition of magnetic field. Our results indicate that the reconnection rate of the background tearing-unstable plasma converges only for finite values of the Lundquist number and for sufficiently large grid resolutions. In general, it is found that (for a 2nd-order scheme) the minimum threshold for numerical convergence during the linear phases requires the number of computational zones covering the initial current sheet width to scale roughly as $\sim \sqrt{\bar{S}}$, where $\bar{S}$ is the Lundquist number defined on the current sheet width. On the other hand, the process of particle acceleration is found to be nearly independent of the underlying numerical details inasmuch as the system becomes tearing-unstable and enters in its nonlinear stages. In the limit of large $\bar{S}$, the ensuing power-law index quickly converge to $p \approx 1.7$, consistently with the fast reconnection regime.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207