Dual formulation of the maximum entropy method applied to analytic continuation of quantum Monte Carlo data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many fields of physics use quantum Monte Carlo techniques, but struggle to estimate dynamic spectra via the analytic continuation of imaginary-time quantum Monte Carlo data. One of the most ubiquitous approaches to analytic continuation is the maximum entropy method (MEM). We supply a dual Newton optimization algorithm to be used within the MEM and provide analytic bounds for the algorithm’s error. The optimization algorithm is freely availible on github ( repository ). The MEM is typically used with Bryan’s controversial algorithm (Rothkopf 2020 Data 5 55). We present new theoretical issues that are not yet in the literature. Our algorithm has all the theoretical benefits of Bryan’s algorithm without these theoretical issues the implementation of the dual Newton optimizer within the MEM is freely available on github ( repository ). We compare the MEM with Bryan’s optimization to the MEM with our dual Newton optimization on test problems from lattice quantum chromodynamics and plasma physics. These comparisons show that in the presence of noise the dual Newton algorithm produces better estimates and error bars; this indicates the limits of Bryan’s algorithm’s applicability. We use the MEM to investigate authentic quantum Monte Carlo data for the uniform electron gas at warm dense matter conditions and further substantiate the roton-type feature in the dispersion relation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".