MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine learning for analysing ab initio molecular dynamics simulations

2020· article· en· W3034490402 on OpenAlexaff
Florian Häse, Ignacio Fdez. Galván, Alán Aspuru‐Guzik, Roland Lindh, Morgane Vacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissociation (chemistry)Ab initioMolecular dynamicsExcited stateDecompositionChemistryComputational chemistryMoleculeComputer scienceChemical physicsBiological systemPhysicsAtomic physicsPhysical chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Post-calculation analyses are often required to extract physical insights from ab initio molecular dynamics simulations. In the present work, we use different machine learning classifiers to take a new perspective on the decomposition reaction of dioxetane. Upon thermally activated decomposition, dioxetane can form products in an electronically excited state and can thus chemiluminesce. Simulated dynamics trajectories exhibit both successful and frustrated dissociations. As an exhaustive and systematic study of the decomposition mechanism “by hand” is beyond feasibility, machine learning models have been employed to study the relevant nuclear distortions governing molecular dissociation. According to all classifiers used in the study, the two sets of geometries differ by the in-phase planarisation of the two formaldehyde moieties. New insights are obtained from this analysis: if both moieties are not planar enough when the dissociation is attempted, it is frustrated and the molecule remains trapped. The postponing of the decomposition reaction by the so-called entropic trap enhances the chemiexcitation efficiency.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicbioluminescence and chemiluminescence researchFrench-language works237,207