MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111454271 · doi:10.1007/jhep06(2021)040

Disentangling a deep learned volume formula

2021· article· en· W3111454271 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of High Energy Physics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Research FoundationUniversity of PennsylvaniaSimons Foundation
KeywordsAnalytic continuationContinuationPolynomialSimple (philosophy)Knot (papermaking)Approximation errorKnot theoryProperties of polynomial roots

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a simple phenomenological formula which approximates the hyperbolic volume of a knot using only a single evaluation of its Jones polynomial at a root of unity. The average error is just 2.86% on the first 1.7 million knots, which represents a large improvement over previous formulas of this kind. To find the approximation formula, we use layer-wise relevance propagation to reverse engineer a black box neural network which achieves a similar average error for the same approximation task when trained on 10% of the total dataset. The particular roots of unity which appear in our analysis cannot be written as e2πi/(k+2) with integer k; therefore, the relevant Jones polynomial evaluations are not given by unknot-normalized expectation values of Wilson loop operators in conventional SU(2) Chern-Simons theory with level k. Instead, they correspond to an analytic continuation of such expectation values to fractional level. We briefly review the continuation procedure and comment on the presence of certain Lefschetz thimbles, to which our approximation formula is sensitive, in the analytically continued Chern-Simons integration cycle.

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)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of High Energy PhysicsSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207