Probing Potential Energy Surface Exploration Strategies for Complex Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficiency of minimum-energy configuration searching algorithms is closely linked to the energy landscape structure of complex systems, yet these algorithms often include a number of steps of which the effect is not always clear. Decoupling these steps and their impacts can allow us to better understand both their role and the nature of complex energy landscape. Here, we consider a family of minimum-energy algorithms based, directly or indirectly, on the well-known Bell–Evans–Polanyi (BEP) principle. Comparing trajectories generated with BEP-based algorithms to kinetically correct off-lattice kinetic Monte Carlo schemes allow us to confirm that the BEP principle does not hold for complex systems since forward and reverse energy barriers are completely uncorrelated. As would be expected, following the lowest available energy barrier leads to rapid trapping. This is why BEP-based methods require also a direct handling of visited basins or barriers. Comparing the efficiency of these methods with a thermodynamical handling of low-energy barriers, we show that most of the efficiency of the BEP-like methods lie first and foremost in the basin management rather than in the BEP-like step.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".