MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2062581853 · doi:10.1063/1.3633515

Using swarm intelligence for finding transition states and reaction paths

2011· article· en· W2062581853 on OpenAlexaff
René Fournier, Satya Bulusu, Stephen Chen, Jamie Tung

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaddle pointMaxima and minimaClimbPath (computing)SaddleEnergy (signal processing)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Potential energySequence (biology)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringAerospace engineeringGeometryClassical mechanicsChemistryMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an algorithm that explores potential energy surfaces (PES) and finds approximate reaction paths and transition states. A few (≈6) evolving atomic configurations ("climbers") start near a local minimum M1 of the PES. The climbers seek a shallow ascent, low energy, path toward a saddle point S12, cross over to another valley of the PES, and climb down to a new minimum M2 that was not known beforehand. Climbers use both energy and energy derivatives to make individual decisions, and they use relative fitness to make team-based decisions. In sufficiently long runs, they keep exploring and may go through a sequence M1-S12-M2-S23-M3 ... of minima and saddle points without revisiting any of the critical points. We report results on eight small test systems that highlight advantages and disadvantages of the method. We also investigated the PES of Li(8), Al(7)(+), Ag(7), and Ag(2)NH(3) to illustrate potential applications of this new 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical Physics→Same topicMachine Learning in Materials Science→French-language works237,207→