MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Soliton Shielding of the Focusing Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation

2023· article· en· W4360611110 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Bertola, Тамара Грава, Giuseppe Orsatti

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsSolitonPhysicsBounded functionEigenvalues and eigenvectorsEllipseSpectrum (functional analysis)Quantum mechanicsDomain (mathematical analysis)Limit (mathematics)Nonlinear Schrödinger equationNonlinear systemMathematical physicsMathematical analysisMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We first consider a deterministic gas of N solitons for the focusing nonlinear Schrödinger (FNLS) equation in the limit N→∞ with a point spectrum chosen to interpolate a given spectral soliton density over a bounded domain of the complex spectral plane. We show that when the domain is a disk and the soliton density is an analytic function, then the corresponding deterministic soliton gas surprisingly yields the one-soliton solution with the point spectrum the center of the disk. We call this effect soliton shielding. We show that this behavior is robust and survives also for a stochastic soliton gas: indeed, when the N-soliton spectrum is chosen as random variables either uniformly distributed on the circle, or chosen according to the statistics of the eigenvalues of the Ginibre random matrix the phenomenon of soliton shielding persists in the limit N→∞. When the domain is an ellipse, the soliton shielding reduces the spectral data to the soliton density concentrating between the foci of the ellipse. The physical solution is asymptotically steplike oscillatory, namely, the initial profile is a periodic elliptic function in the negative x direction while it vanishes exponentially fast in the opposite direction.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207