MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086356742 · doi:10.1063/5.0023492

Gaussian process model of 51-dimensional potential energy surface for protonated imidazole dimer

2020· article· en· W3086356742 on OpenAlexafffund
Hiroki Sugisawa, Tomonori Ida, Roman V. Krems

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Chemical Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExtrapolationPotential energy surfaceAb initioStatistical physicsGaussian processCurse of dimensionalityGaussianProtonationComputational chemistryComputer scienceProbabilistic logicWater dimerChemistryPhysicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceHydrogen bondMolecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of the present work is to obtain accurate potential energy surfaces (PESs) for high-dimensional molecular systems with a small number of ab initio calculations in a system-agnostic way. We use probabilistic modeling based on Gaussian processes (GPs). We illustrate that it is possible to build an accurate GP model of a 51-dimensional PES based on 5000 randomly distributed ab initio calculations with a global accuracy of <0.2 kcal/mol. Our approach uses GP models with composite kernels designed to enhance the Bayesian information content and represents the global PES as a sum of a full-dimensional GP and several GP models for molecular fragments of lower dimensionality. We demonstrate the potency of these algorithms by constructing the global PES for the protonated imidazole dimer, a molecular system with 19 atoms. We illustrate that GP models thus constructed can extrapolate the PES from low energies (<10 000 cm−1), yielding a PES at high energies (>20 000 cm−1). This opens the prospect for new applications of GPs, such as mapping out phase transitions by extrapolation or accelerating Bayesian optimization, for high-dimensional physics and chemistry problems with a restricted number of inputs, i.e., for high-dimensional problems where obtaining training data is very difficult.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Chemical PhysicsSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207