A Cross-Entropy Method that Optimizes Partially Decomposable Problems: A New Way to Interpret NMR Spectra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some real-world problems are partially decomposable, in that they can be decomposed into a set of coupled sub- problems, that are each relatively easy to solve. However, when these sub-problem share some common variables, it is not sufficient to simply solve each sub-problem in isolation. We develop a technology for such problems, and use it to address the challenge of finding the concentrations of the chemicals that appear in a complex mixture, based on its one-dimensional 1H Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectrum. As each chemical involves clusters of spatially localized peaks, this requires finding the shifts for the clusters and the concentrations of the chemicals, that collectively pro- duce the best match to the observed NMR spectrum. Here, each sub-problem requires finding the chemical concentrations and cluster shifts that can appear within a limited spectrum range; these are coupled as these limited regions can share many chemicals, and so must agree on the concentrations and cluster shifts of the common chemicals. This task motivates CEED: a novel extension to the Cross-Entropy stochastic optimization method constructed to address such partially decomposable problems. Our experimental results in the NMR task show that our CEED system is superior to other well-known optimization methods, and indeed produces the best-known results in this important, real-world application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".