Multi-objective optimization for retinal photoisomerization models with respect to experimental observables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fitting of physical models is often done only using a single target observable. However, when multiple targets are considered, the fitting procedure becomes cumbersome, there being no easy way to quantify the robustness of the model for all different observables. Here, we illustrate that one can jointly search for the best model for each desired observable through multi-objective optimization. To do so, we construct the Pareto front to study if there exists a set of parameters of the model that can jointly describe multiple, or all, observables. To alleviate the computational cost, the predicted error for each targeted objective is approximated with a Gaussian process model as it is commonly done in the Bayesian optimization framework. We applied this methodology to improve three different models used in the simulation of stationary state cis-trans photoisomerization of retinal in rhodopsin, a significant biophysical process. Optimization was done with respect to different experimental measurements, including emission spectra, peak absorption frequencies for the cis and trans conformers, and energy storage. Advantages and disadvantages of previously proposed models are exposed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".