MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067050455 · doi:10.1063/1.2336223

A random-sampling high dimensional model representation neural network for building potential energy surfaces

2006· article· en· W2067050455 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergei Manzhos, Tucker Carrington

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Component (thermodynamics)Artificial neural networkComputer scienceMode (computer interface)Term (time)Potential energyQuantumStatistical physicsEnergy (signal processing)Construct (python library)AlgorithmApplied mathematicsMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine the high dimensional model representation (HDMR) idea of Rabitz and co-workers [J. Phys. Chem. 110, 2474 (2006)] with neural network (NN) fits to obtain an effective means of building multidimensional potentials. We verify that it is possible to determine an accurate many-dimensional potential by doing low dimensional fits. The final potential is a sum of terms each of which depends on a subset of the coordinates. This form facilitates quantum dynamics calculations. We use NNs to represent HDMR component functions that minimize error mode term by mode term. This NN procedure makes it possible to construct high-order component functions which in turn enable us to determine a good potential. It is shown that the number of available potential points determines the order of the HDMR which should be used.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations259
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207