MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240642759 · doi:10.1103/physrevc.83.034301

Evolving nuclear many-body forces with the similarity renormalization group

2011· article· en· W4240642759 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Jurgenson, P. Navrátil, R. J. Furnstahl

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review C · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear physics research studies
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNuclear forceRenormalization groupPhysicsHierarchySimilarity (geometry)Nuclear structureStatistical physicsSpace (punctuation)Ab initioRange (aeronautics)Theoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsNuclear physicsComputer scienceNucleonMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the Similarity Renormalization Group has provided a powerful and versatile means to soften interactions for ab initio nuclear calculations. The substantial contribution of both induced and initial three-body forces to the nuclear interaction has required the consistent evolution of free-space Hamiltonians in the three-particle space. We present the most recent progress on this work, extending the calculational capability to the $p$-shell nuclei and showing that the hierarchy of induced many-body forces is consistent with previous estimates. Calculations over a range of the flow parameter for $^{6}\mathrm{Li}$, including fully evolved $\mathit{NN}$ $+$ 3$N$ interactions, show moderate contributions due to induced four-body forces and display the same improved convergence properties as in lighter nuclei. A systematic analysis provides further evidence that the hierarchy of many-body forces is preserved.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations109
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review CSame topicNuclear physics research studiesFrench-language works237,207