MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998940212 · doi:10.1063/1.2996579

Moving least-squares enhanced Shepard interpolation for the fast marching and string methods

2009· article· en· W1998940212 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven K. Burger, Yuli Liu, Utpal Sarkar, Paul W. Ayers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanada Research ChairsMcMaster UniversityInstitute of Museum and Library Services
KeywordsInterpolation (computer graphics)String (physics)Computer scienceLeast-squares function approximationMoving least squaresMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceApplied mathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of the potential energy calculations required by the quadratic string method (QSM), and the fast marching method (FMM) is significantly reduced by using Shepard interpolation, with a moving least squares to fit the higher-order derivatives of the potential. The derivatives of the potential are fitted up to fifth order. With an error estimate for the interpolated values, this moving least squares enhanced Shepard interpolation scheme drastically reduces the number of potential energy calculations in FMM, often by up 80%. Fitting up through the highest order tested here (fifth order) gave the best results for all grid spacings. For QSM, using enhanced Shepard interpolation gave slightly better results than using the usual second order approximate, damped Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno updated Hessian to approximate the surface. To test these methods we examined two analytic potentials, the rotational dihedral potential of alanine dipeptide and the S(N)2 reaction of methyl chloride with fluoride.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicElectromagnetic Simulation and Numerical MethodsFrench-language works237,207