MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discriminative Cooperative Networks for Detecting Phase Transitions

2018· article· en· W2799261665 on OpenAlexafffund
Ye-Hua Liu, Evert van Nieuwenburg

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanada First Research Excellence FundSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsDiscriminative modelComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Task (project management)Artificial intelligencePhase (matter)Parameter spaceMachine learningSpace (punctuation)Pattern recognition (psychology)PhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classification of states of matter and their corresponding phase transitions is a special kind of machine-learning task, where physical data allow for the analysis of new algorithms, which have not been considered in the general computer-science setting so far. Here we introduce an unsupervised machine-learning scheme for detecting phase transitions with a pair of discriminative cooperative networks (DCNs). In this scheme, a guesser network and a learner network cooperate to detect phase transitions from fully unlabeled data. The new scheme is efficient enough for dealing with phase diagrams in two-dimensional parameter spaces, where we can utilize an active contour model-the snake-from computer vision to host the two networks. The snake, with a DCN "brain," moves and learns actively in the parameter space, and locates phase boundaries automatically.

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)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations114
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207