MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1922176143 · doi:10.1139/p11-094

Modeling of heavy ion collisions using radial basis function and generalized regression neural networks

2011· article· en· W1922176143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
El‐Sayed A. El‐Dahshan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAin Shams University
KeywordsArtificial neural networkPhysicsHeavy ionRadial basis functionRegressionFunction (biology)Multiplicity (mathematics)Basis (linear algebra)Experimental dataBiological systemIonMachine learningStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been applied to heavy ion collisions. In the present work, the possibility of using ANN methods for modeling the multiplicity distributions, P(ns), of shower particles produced from p, d, 4He, 6Li, 7Li, 12C, 16O, and 24Mg interactions with light (CNO) as well as heavy (AgBr) emulsions at 4.5 A GeV/c was investigated. Two different ANN approaches, namely radial basis function neural network (RBFNN) and generalized regression neural network (GRNN), were employed to obtain a mathematical formula describing these collisions. The results from RBFNN and GRNN models showed good agreement with the experimental data. GRNN models have a better performance than the RBFNN models. This study showed that the RBFNN and GRNN models are capable of accurately predicting the P(ns) of shower particles in the training and testing phases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207