MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971953930

Discriminative and generative machine learning for spin systems based on physically interpretable features

2019· article· en· W2971953930 on OpenAlexaff
Corneel Casert, Kyle Mills, Jannes Nys, J. Ryckebusch, Isaac Tamblyn, Tom Vieijra

Bibliographic record

VenueStatPhys 27 Main Conference · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDiscriminative modelArtificial neural networkComputer sciencePhysical systemA priori and a posterioriRepresentation (politics)Generative grammarMachine learningPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, much effort has been devoted to studying whether machine learning methods are capable of recognizing phase boundaries in spin systems. This is typically done using deep neural networks, trained on system configurations at fixed control parameter values, but without receiving any a priori knowledge of physical features. Opening the ‘black-box algorithms’ and uncovering which features are captured by the neural network is a crucial and oft-overlooked step. Without this additional step, one cannot guarantee that the algorithm's decision on the phase boundaries is based on physically relevant features, or on less relevant characteristics—which would limit its applicability. We use the example of exploring the two-dimensional phase diagram of a non-equilibrium spin system (active Ising model) to highlight the importance of scrutinizing the internal representation of a neural network. By only training networks on a small slice of the phase diagram, we show that some networks capture the relevant physics to complete the remainder of the phase diagram.  Other networks fail in doing so—even though they are perfectly capable of reaching their training objective. We demonstrate that by highlighting on which input regions networks base their decision, we can select the relevant networks and show that they can capture physical features such as emergent magnetization patterns [Casert, C., Vieijra, T., Nys, J., & Ryckebusch, J. (2019). Physical Review E, 99(2), 023304]. An additional test of whether deep neural networks can recognize physical characteristics is in its potential to generate additional system configurations. We show that a generative adversarial network (GAN) can create spin configurations that are indistinguishable from the training data [Mills, K., & Tamblyn, I. (2017). arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.08053]. By conditioning the GAN on physical quantities, we show it can accurately learn how to use this information in its generation procedure, and create configurations at a requested value of an observable, e.g. at a fixed energy. Furthermore, we show how we can use GANs to create configurations at system sizes much larger than the training data, allowing for highly efficient sampling of arbitrarily large configurations.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatPhys 27 Main ConferenceSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207