Can a Machine Learn the Outcome of Planetary Collisions?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planetary-scale collisions are common during the last stages of formation of solid planets, including the Solar system terrestrial planets. The problem of growing planets has been divided into studying the gravitational interaction of embryos relevant in million year timescales and treated with N-body codes and the collision between objects with a timescale of hours to days and treated with smoothed-particle hydrodynamics. These are now being coupled with simple parameterized models. We set out to investigate if machine learning techniques can offer a better solution by predicting the outcome of collisions which can then be used in N-body simulations. We considered three different supervised machine learning approaches: gradient boosting regression trees, nested models, and gaussian processes. We found that the former produced the best results, and that it was slightly surpassed by ensembling different algorithms. With gaussian processes, we found the regions of parameter space that may yield the most information to machine learning algorithms. Thus, we suggest SPH calculations to focus first on mass ratios above 0.5.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it