Ground state properties of a Tonks-Girardeau Gas in a periodic potential

In this paper, we investigate the ground-state properties of a bosonic Tonks-Girardeau gas confined in a one-dimensional periodic potential. The single-particle reduced density matrix is computed numerically for systems up to $N=265$ bosons. Scaling analysis of the occupation number of the lowest orbital shows that there are no Bose-Einstein Condensation(BEC) for the periodically trapped TG gas in both commensurate and incommensurate cases. We find that, in the commensurate case, the scaling exponents of the occupation number of the lowest orbital, the amplitude of the lowest orbital and the zero-momentum peak height with the particle numbers are 0, -0.5 and 1, respectively, while in the incommensurate case, they are 0.5, -0.5 and 1.5, respectively. These exponents are related to each other in a universal relation.Comment: 9 pages, 10 figure

Measure-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Maintenance of Database Integrity

[EN] To maintain integrity, constraint violations should be prevented or repaired. However, it may not be feasible to avoid inconsistency, or to repair all violations at once. Based on an abstract concept of violation measures, updates and repairs can be checked for keeping inconsistency bounded, such that integrity violations are guaranteed to never get out of control. This measure-based approach goes beyond conventional methods that are not meant to be applied in the presence of inconsistency. It also generalizes recently introduced concepts of inconsistency-tolerant integrity maintenance.Partially supported by FEDER and the Spanish grants TIN2009-14460-C03 and TIN2010-17139Decker, H. (2013). Measure-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Maintenance of Database Integrity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7693:149-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36008-4_7S1491737693Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995)Abiteboul, S., Vianu, V.: A transaction-based approach to relational database specification. JACM 36(4), 758–789 (1989)Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P.: Repair checking in inconsistent databases: algorithms and complexity. In: 12th ICDT, pp. 31–41. ACM Press (2009)Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: PODS 1999, pp. 68–79. ACM Press (1999)Arieli, O., Denecker, M., Bruynooghe, M.: Distance semantics for database repair. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50, 389–415 (2007)Arni-Bloch, N., Ralyté, J., Léonard, M.: Service–Driven Information Systems Evolution: Handling Integrity Constraints Consistency. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 191–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Bauer, H.: Maß- und Integrationstheorie, 2. Auflage. De Gruyter (1992)Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Quasi-Classical Logic: Non-Trivializable Classical Reasoning from Inconsistent Information. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 44–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Bohanon, P., Fan, W., Flaster, M., Rastogi, R.: A Cost-Based Model and Effective Heuristic for Repairing Constraints by Value Modification. In: Proc. SIGMOD 2005, pp. 143–154. ACM Press (2005)Ceri, S., Cochrane, R., Widom, J.: Practical Applications of Triggers and Constraints: Success and Lingering Issues. In: Proc. 26th VLDB, pp. 254–262. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)Chakravarthy, U., Grant, J., Minker, J.: Logic-based Approach to Semantic Query Optimization. Transactions on Database Systems 15(2), 162–207 (1990)Chomicki, J.: Consistent Query Answering: Five Easy Pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: On simplification of database integrity constraints. Fundamenta Informaticae 71(4), 371–417 (2006)Clark, K.: Negation as Failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press (1978)Curino, C., Moon, H., Deutsch, A., Zaniolo, C.: Update Rewriting and Integrity Constraint Maintenance in a Schema Evolution Support System: PRISM++. PVLDB 4, 117–128 (2010)Dawson, J.: The compactness of first-order logic: From Gödel to Lindström. History and Philosophy of Logic 14(1), 15–37 (1993)Decker, H.: The Range Form of Databases and Queries or: How to Avoid Floundering. In: Proc. 5th ÖGAI. Informatik-Fachberichte, vol. 208, pp. 114–123. Springer (1989)Decker, H.: Drawing Updates From Derivations. In: Kanellakis, P.C., Abiteboul, S. (eds.) ICDT 1990. LNCS, vol. 470, pp. 437–451. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Decker, H.: Extending Inconsistency-Tolerant Integrity Checking by Semantic Query Optimization. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5181, pp. 89–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Decker, H.: Answers That Have Integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 54–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Causes of the Violation of Integrity Constraints for Supporting the Quality of Databases. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2011, Part V. LNCS, vol. 6786, pp. 283–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking based on Inconsistency Metrics. In: König, A., Dengel, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kise, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6882, pp. 548–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Partial Repairs that Tolerate Inconsistency. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 389–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Consistent Explanations of Answers to Queries in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. In: Roth-Berghofer, T., Tintarev, N., Leake, D. (eds.) Explanation-aware Computing, Proc. IJCAI 2011 Workshop ExaCt 2011, pp. 71–80 (2011), http://exact2011.workshop.hm/index.phpDecker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Classifying integrity checking methods with regard to inconsistency tolerance. In: Proc. PPDP 2008, pp. 195–204. ACM Press (2008)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Modeling, Measuring and Monitoring the Quality of Information. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking. IEEE TKDE 23(2), 218–234 (2011)Decker, H., Muñoz-Escoí, F.D.: Revisiting and Improving a Result on Integrity Preservation by Concurrent Transactions. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 297–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic Proof Procedures for Assumption-based Admissible Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J.: Finite Model Theory, 2nd edn. Springer (2006)Embury, S., Brandt, S., Robinson, J., Sutherland, I., Bisby, F., Gray, A., Jones, A., White, R.: Adapting integrity enforcement techniques for data reconciliation. Information Systems 26, 657–689 (2001)Enderton, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. Academic Press (2001)Eiter, T., Fink, M., Greco, G., Lembo, D.: Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases. ACM TODS 33(2), article 10 (2008)Furfaro, F., Greco, S., Molinaro, C.: A three-valued semantics for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 51(2-4), 167–193 (2007)Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring the Good and the Bad in Inconsistent Information. In: Proc. 22nd IJCAI, pp. 2632–2637 (2011)Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE TKDE 15(6), 1389–1408 (2003)Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.: Updating knowledge bases. New Generation Computing 8(1), 71–89 (1990)Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.: Updating knowledge bases II. New Generation Computing 10(1), 73–100 (1991)Gupta, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J., Widom, J.: Constraint checking with partial information. In: Proc. PODS 1994, pp. 45–55. ACM Press (1994)Hunter, A.: Measuring Inconsistency in Knowledge via Quasi-Classical Models. In: Proc. 18th AAAI &14th IAAI, pp. 68–73 (2002)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to Measuring Inconsistent Information. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 191–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Proc. 11th KR), pp. 358–366. AAAI Press (2008)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: Shapley Inconsistency Values. Artificial Intelligence 174, 1007–1026 (2010)Kakas, A., Mancarella, P.: Database updates through abduction. In: Proc. 16th VLDB, pp. 650–661. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Kakas, A., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: The role of Abduction in Logic Programming. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press (1998)Lee, S.Y., Ling, T.W.: Further improvements on integrity constraint checking for stratifiable deductive databases. In: Proc. VLDB 1996, pp. 495–505. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)Lehrer, K.: Relevant Deduction and Minimally Inconsistent Sets. Journal of Philosophy 3(2,3), 153–165 (1973)Mu, K., Liu, W., Jin, Z., Bell, D.: A Syntax-based Approach to Measuring the Degree of Inconsistency for Belief Bases. J. Approx. Reasoning 52(7), 978–999 (2011)Lloyd, J., Sonenberg, L., Topor, R.: Integrity constraint checking in stratified databases. J. Logic Programming 4(4), 331–343 (1987)Lozinskii, E.: Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. J. Automated Reasoning 12(1), 1–31 (1994)Ma, Y., Qi, G., Hitzler, P.: Computing inconsistency measure based on paraconsistent semantics. J. Logic Computation 21(6), 1257–1281 (2011)Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H.: Transaction Management with Integrity Checking. In: Andersen, K.V., Debenham, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3588, pp. 606–615. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H., Decker, H.: Integrity Checking and Maintenance in Relational and Deductive Databases and Beyond. In: Ma, Z. (ed.) Intelligent Databases: Technologies and Applications, pp. 238–285. IGI Global (2006)Martinez, M.V., Pugliese, A., Simari, G.I., Subrahmanian, V.S., Prade, H.: How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 103–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Meyer, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley (1994)Nicolas, J.M.: Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)Plexousakis, D., Mylopoulos, J.: Accommodating Integrity Constraints During Database Design. In: Apers, P.M.G., Bouzeghoub, M., Gardarin, G. (eds.) EDBT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1057, pp. 495–513. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Rahm, E., Do, H.: Data Cleaning: Problems and Current Approaches. Data Engineering Bulletin 23(4), 3–13 (2000)Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.: A theorem-proving approach to database integrity. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 313–362. Morgan Kaufmann (1988)Thimm, M.: Measuring Inconsistency in Probabilistic Knowledge Bases. In: Proc. 25th UAI, pp. 530–537. AUAI Press (2009)Vardi, M.: On the integrity of databases with incomplete information. In: Proc. 5th PODS, pp. 252–266. ACM Press (1986)Wijsen, J.: Database repairing using updates. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 30(3), 722–768 (2005

The first widespread solar energetic particle event observed by Solar Orbiter on 2020 November 29

Context. On 2020 November 29, the first widespread solar energetic particle (SEP) event of solar cycle 25 was observed at four widely separated locations in the inner (. 1 AU) heliosphere. Relativistic electrons as well as protons with energies > 50 MeV were observed by Solar Orbiter (SolO), Parker Solar Probe (PSP), the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO)-A and multiple near-Earth spacecraft. The SEP event was associated with an M4.4 class X-ray flare and accompanied by a coronal mass ejection (CME) and an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wave as well as a type II radio burst and multiple type III radio bursts. Aims. We present multi-spacecraft particle observations and place them in context with source observations from remote sensing instruments and discuss how such observations may further our understanding of particle acceleration and transport in this widespread event. Methods. Velocity dispersion analysis (VDA) and time shift analysis (TSA) were used to infer the particle release times at the Sun. Solar wind plasma and magnetic field measurements were examined to identify structures that influence the properties of the energetic particles such as their intensity. Pitch angle distributions and first-order anisotropies were analyzed in order to characterize the particle propagation in the interplanetary medium. Results. We find that during the 2020 November 29 SEP event, particles spread over more than 230° in longitude close to 1 AU. The particle onset delays observed at the different spacecraft are larger as the flare–footpoint angle increases and are consistent with those from previous STEREO observations. Comparing the timing when the EUV wave intersects the estimated magnetic footpoints of each spacecraft with particle release times from TSA and VDA, we conclude that a simple scenario where the particle release is only determined by the EUV wave propagation is unlikely for this event. Observations of anisotropic particle distributions at SolO, Wind, and STEREO-A do not rule out that particles are injected over a wide longitudinal range close to the Sun. However, the low values of the first-order anisotropy observed by near-Earth spacecraft suggest that diffusive propagation processes are likely involve

The first widespread solar energetic particle event observed by Solar Orbiter on 2020 November 29

Context. On 2020 November 29, the first widespread solar energetic particle (SEP) event of solar cycle 25 was observed at four widely separated locations in the inner (less than or similar to 1AU) heliosphere. Relativistic electrons as well as protons with energies >50MeV were observed by Solar Orbiter (SolO), Parker Solar Probe, the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO)-A and multiple near-Earth spacecraft. The SEP event was associated with an M4.4 class X-ray flare and accompanied by a coronal mass ejection and an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wave as well as a type II radio burst and multiple type III radio bursts.Aims. We present multi-spacecraft particle observations and place them in context with source observations from remote sensing instruments and discuss how such observations may further our understanding of particle acceleration and transport in this widespread event.Methods. Velocity dispersion analysis (VDA) and time shift analysis (TSA) were used to infer the particle release times at the Sun. Solar wind plasma and magnetic field measurements were examined to identify structures that influence the properties of the energetic particles such as their intensity. Pitch angle distributions and first-order anisotropies were analyzed in order to characterize the particle propagation in the interplanetary medium.Results. We find that during the 2020 November 29 SEP event, particles spread over more than 230 degrees in longitude close to 1AU. The particle onset delays observed at the different spacecraft are larger as the flare-footpoint angle increases and are consistent with those from previous STEREO observations. Comparing the timing when the EUV wave intersects the estimated magnetic footpoints of each spacecraft with particle release times from TSA and VDA, we conclude that a simple scenario where the particle release is only determined by the EUV wave propagation is unlikely for this event. Observations of anisotropic particle distributions at SolO, Wind, and STEREO-A do not rule out that particles are injected over a wide longitudinal range close to the Sun. However, the low values of the first-order anisotropy observed by near-Earth spacecraft suggest that di ffusive propagation processes are likely involved.</p

Implementing the MULTI-VP coronal model in EUHFORIA: Test case results and comparisons with the WSA coronal model

International audienceContext. In this study, we focus on improving EUHFORIA (European Heliospheric Forecasting Information Asset), a recently developed 3D magnetohydrodynamics space weather prediction tool. The EUHFORIA model consists of two parts covering two spatial domains: the solar corona and the inner heliosphere. For the first part, the semiempirical Wang-Sheeley-Arge (WSA) model is used by default; this model employs the potential field source surface and Schatten current sheet models to provide the necessary solar wind plasma and magnetic conditions above the solar surface, at 0.1 AU, which serve as boundary conditions for the inner heliospheric part. Herein, we present the first results of the implementation of an alternative coronal model in EUHFORIA, the so-called MULTI-VP model. Aims: After we replace the default EUHFORIA coronal setup with the MULTI-VP model, we compare their outputs both at 0.1 AU and 1 AU, for test cases involving high speed wind streams (HSSs). We select two distinct cases in which the standard EUHFORIA setup failed to reproduce the HSS plasma and magnetic signatures at Earth to test the performance of MULTI-VP coupled with EUHFORIA-heliosphere. Methods: To understand the quality of modeling with MULTI-VP in comparison with the default coronal model in EUHFORIA, we considered one HSS case during a period of low solar activity and another one during a period of high solar activity. Moreover, the modeling of the two HSSs was performed by employing magnetograms from different providers: one from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) and the second from the Wilcox Space Observatory (WSO). This way, we were able to distinguish differences arising not only because of the different models but also because of different magnetograms. Results: The results indicate that when employing a GONG magnetogram, the combination MULTI-VP+EUHFORIA-heliosphere reproduces the majority of HSS plasma and magnetic signatures measured at L1. On the contrary, the standard WSA+EUHFORIA-heliosphere combination does not capture the arrival of the HSS cases at L1. When employing WSO magnetograms, MULTI-VP+EUHFORIA-heliosphere reproduces the HSS that occurred during the period of high solar activity. However, it is unclear if it models the HSS during the period of low solar activity. For the same magnetogram and periods of time, WSA+EUHFORIA-heliosphere is not able to capture the HSSs of interest. Conclusions: The results show that the accuracy of the simulation output at Earth depends on the choice of both the coronal model and input magnetogram. Nevertheless, a more extensive statistical analysis is necessary to determine how precisely these choices affect the quality of the solar wind predictions