MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408506940 · doi:10.1063/5.0241523

The modified airy function approximation applied to the double-well potential

2025· article· en· W4408506940 on OpenAlexafffund
N. Wine, J. Achtymichuk, F. Marsiglio

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAiry functionFunction (biology)PhysicsFunction approximationComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The single harmonic oscillator and double-well potentials are important systems in quantum mechanics. The single harmonic oscillator is the paradigm in physics and is taught in nearly all beginner undergraduate classes, while the double-well potential illustrates the two important principles of quantum tunneling and linear superposition. While exact analytical solutions of the Schrödinger equation exist for both of these potentials, they are also employed to benchmark the use of approximate techniques, which may be the only recourse for more complicated potentials. In this paper, we review the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) approximation for both these potentials. While this approximation is known for its accurate energies, we will instead emphasize how poor the WKB wave functions are. The inaccuracy of the WKB wave functions will then motivate us to adopt the lesser-known Modified Airy Function (MAF) approximation, which alleviates the deficiencies of the WKB wave functions. We will review the MAF solution to the simple harmonic oscillator potential and then apply the MAF to the double-well potential. We find accurate eigenvalues and, more importantly, very accurate wave functions. We conclude with the suggestion that an introduction to the MAF should be included in undergraduate courses to complement the WKB.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP AdvancesSame topicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein CondensatesFrench-language works237,207