MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043345499 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v3n4p38

Molecular Dynamics for Two-Body Potential from Unobserved Gaussian Regression

2014· article· en· W2043345499 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maharavo Randrianarivony

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEurostarsBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsMolecular dynamicsPotential energyStatistical physicsAtom (system on chip)GaussianEnergy (signal processing)ComputationComputer sciencePhysicsAtomic physicsAlgorithmQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A molecular dynamic simulation requires the local potential energy per atom because it provides the force applied to each atom. On the other hand, an electronic structure computation provides only the global potential energy of an atomic system. We propose a stochastic fitting for deducing a potential from a total energy which can be incorporated inside a molecular dynamic program. The objective of that fitting process is twofold. First, the total energy can be reproduced with a sufficient accuracy. In addition, we want to separate the potential energy into atomic contributions. The only inputs in the stochastic regression are the total energies of the atomic systems. As for the applications, we examine the performance of the method with the help of a mathematical model. Afterward, we use it for quantum applications in which we compare the direct method and the unobserved fitting with respect to the energy conservations. For a molecular dynamic application, we examine the atomic cluster formations during freezing when the proposed potential is used. Although the method is generally applicable, we restrict in this paper to total energies which are reproduced from two-body potentials for the molecular dynamic simulation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207