MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization of the Kinetic Activation-Relaxation Technique, an off-lattice and self-learning kinetic Monte-Carlo method

2012· article· en· W2166991717 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean-François Joly, Laurent Karim Béland, P.E. Brommer, Fedwa El‐Mellouhi, Normand Mousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsKinetic Monte CarloMonte Carlo methodKinetic energyComputer scienceStatistical physicsLattice (music)Verlet integrationRelaxation (psychology)Dynamic Monte Carlo methodProcess (computing)Computational sciencePhysicsMathematicsMolecular dynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present two major optimizations for the kinetic Activation-Relaxation Technique (k-ART), an off-lattice self-learning kinetic Monte Carlo (KMC) algorithm with on-the-fly event search THAT has been successfully applied to study a number of semiconducting and metallic systems. K-ART is parallelized in a non-trivial way: A master process uses several worker processes to perform independent event searches for possible events, while all bookkeeping and the actual simulation is performed by the master process. Depending on the complexity of the system studied, the parallelization scales well for tens to more than one hundred processes. For dealing with large systems, we present a near order 1 implementation. Techniques such as Verlet lists, cell decomposition and partial force calculations are implemented, and the CPU time per time step scales sublinearly with the number of particles, providing an efficient use of computational resources.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207