MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implicit particle-in-cell development for ion source plasmas

2024· article· en· W4396918828 on OpenAlexaff
N. Savard, G. Fubiani, R. Baartman, Morgan Dehnel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPacific Insight Electronics (Canada)TRIUMF
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle-in-cellPlasmaIonParticle (ecology)Development (topology)PhysicsAtomic physicsNuclear physicsMathematicsGeologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Particle-in-Cell (PIC) codes used to study plasma dynamics within ion sources typically use an explicit scheme. These methods can be slow when simulating regions of high electron density in ion sources, which require resolving the Debye length in space and the plasma frequency in time. Recent developments on fully-implicit PIC models in curvilinear geometries have shown that these spatial/time scales can be significantly decreased/increased respectively, allowing for notable speed-ups in simulation time, and thus making it a potential tool for studying the physics of ion sources. For this purpose, a charge and energy conserving implicit PIC code has been developed in 1D to determine its potential for simulating bounded plasmas. In this paper, we use this model to simulate a 1D benchmark of a bounded plasma with fixed plasma density and electron/ion temperatures. The results are shown to compare well to the benchmark and to the results using an explicit PIC code. It is shown that the total amount of macro-particles used in the simulation is a better figure of merit for accurate results than the standard particles per cell used in literature. Significant speed-ups in computation time can be achieved for high plasma densities if the accuracy requirements are relaxed. In this case, we demonstrate the ability of the implicit PIC code to speed-up simulation time by nearly a factor of 12 compared to explicit PIC.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207