MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029775615 · doi:10.1063/1.3366523

Constructing smooth potentials of mean force, radial distribution functions, and probability densities from sampled data

2010· article· en· W2029775615 on OpenAlexaff
Ramses van Zon, Jeremy Schofield

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStatistical Mechanics and Entropy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbability density functionStatistical physicsMathematicsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a method of obtaining smooth analytical estimates of probability densities, radial distribution functions, and potentials of mean force from sampled data in a statistically controlled fashion is presented. The approach is general and can be applied to any density of a single random variable. The method outlined here avoids the use of histograms, which require the specification of a physical parameter (bin size) and tend to give noisy results. The technique is an extension of the Berg-Harris method [B. A. Berg and R. C. Harris, Comput. Phys. Commun. 179, 443 (2008)], which is typically inaccurate for radial distribution functions and potentials of mean force due to a nonuniform Jacobian factor. In addition, the standard method often requires a large number of Fourier modes to represent radial distribution functions, which tends to lead to oscillatory fits. It is shown that the issues of poor sampling due to a Jacobian factor can be resolved using a biased resampling scheme, while the requirement of a large number of Fourier modes is mitigated through an automated piecewise construction approach. The method is demonstrated by analyzing the radial distribution functions in an energy-discretized water model. In addition, the fitting procedure is illustrated on three more applications for which the original Berg-Harris method is not suitable, namely, a random variable with a discontinuous probability density, a density with long tails, and the distribution of the first arrival times of a diffusing particle to a sphere, which has both long tails and short-time structure. In all cases, the resampled, piecewise analytical fit outperforms the histogram and the original Berg-Harris method.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicStatistical Mechanics and EntropyFrench-language works237,207