MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900986313 · doi:10.1103/physreva.100.022512

Deep learning and density-functional theory

2019· article· en· W2900986313 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Ryczko, David A. Strubbe, Isaac Tamblyn

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute CanadaUniversity of California
KeywordsDensity functional theoryStatistical physicsArtificial neural networkInverseConvolutional neural networkRange (aeronautics)Charge (physics)PhysicsAlgorithmComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceQuantum mechanicsMathematicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that deep neural networks can be integrated into, or fully replace, the Kohn-Sham density functional theory (DFT) scheme for multielectron systems in simple harmonic oscillator and random external potentials with no feature engineering. We first show that self-consistent charge densities calculated with different exchange-correlation functionals can be used as input to an extensive deep neural network to make predictions for correlation, exchange, external, kinetic, and total energies simultaneously. Additionally, we show that one can make all of the same predictions with the external potential rather than the self-consistent charge density, which allows one to circumvent the Kohn-Sham DFT scheme altogether. We then show that a self-consistent charge density found from a nonlocal exchange-correlation functional can be used to make energy predictions for a semilocal exchange-correlation functional. Lastly, we use a deep convolutional inverse graphics network to predict the charge density given an external potential for different exchange-correlation functionals and assess the viability of the predicted charge densities. This work shows that extensive deep neural networks are generalizable and transferable given the variability of the potentials (maximum total energy range $\ensuremath{\approx}100$ Ha) because they require no feature engineering and because they can scale to an arbitrary system size with an $O(N)$ computational cost.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations125
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207