MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimation of Thermodynamic Observables in Lattice Field Theories with Deep Generative Models

2021· article· en· W3042241440 on OpenAlexafffund
Kim A. Nicoli, Christopher J. Anders, Lena Funcke, Tobias Hartung, Karl Jansen, Pan Kessel, Shinichi Nakajima, Paolo Stornati

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum many-body systems
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersOntario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and TradeBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftGovernment of CanadaMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloStatistical physicsComputer scienceObservableGenerative grammarLattice (music)Monte Carlo methodMarkov chainField (mathematics)Applied mathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPhysicsMathematicsStatisticsQuantum mechanicsBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this Letter, we demonstrate that applying deep generative machine learning models for lattice field theory is a promising route for solving problems where Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods are problematic. More specifically, we show that generative models can be used to estimate the absolute value of the free energy, which is in contrast to existing MCMC-based methods, which are limited to only estimate free energy differences. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method for two-dimensional ϕ^{4} theory and compare it to MCMC-based methods in detailed numerical experiments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations116
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum many-body systemsFrench-language works237,207