MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991376628 · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.09.005

Data science applications to string theory

2019· article· en· W2991376628 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fabian Ruehle

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoAspen Center for PhysicsAbdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical PhysicsCERNUniversity of PennsylvaniaMicrosoft Research
KeywordsString (physics)PhysicsCluster analysisVariety (cybernetics)Machine learningString theoryUnsupervised learningArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceComputer scienceTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We first introduce various algorithms and techniques for machine learning and data science. While there is a strong focus on neural network applications in unsupervised, supervised and reinforcement learning, other machine learning techniques are discussed as well. These include various clustering and anomaly detection algorithms, support vector machines, and decision trees. In addition, we review data science techniques such as genetic algorithms and topological data analysis. This first part of the review makes some reference to concepts in physics, but the explanations and examples do not assume any knowledge of string theory and should therefore be accessible to a wide variety of readers with a physics background. After that, we illustrate applications to string theory. We give an overview of existing string theory data sets and describe how they can be studied using data science techniques. We also explain the computational complexity involved in the investigation of string vacua. Example codes that illustrate the techniques introduced in this review are available from Fabian Ruehle (0000).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations135
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics ReportsSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207