The CAMELS Multifield Data Set: Learning the Universe’s Fundamental Parameters with Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the Cosmology and Astrophysics with Machine Learning Simulations (CAMELS) Multifield Data set (CMD), a collection of hundreds of thousands of 2D maps and 3D grids containing many different properties of cosmic gas, dark matter, and stars from more than 2000 distinct simulated universes at several cosmic times. The 2D maps and 3D grids represent cosmic regions that span ∼100 million light-years and have been generated from thousands of state-of-the-art hydrodynamic and gravity-only N-body simulations from the CAMELS project. Designed to train machine-learning models, CMD is the largest data set of its kind containing more than 70 TB of data. In this paper we describe CMD in detail and outline a few of its applications. We focus our attention on one such task, parameter inference, formulating the problems we face as a challenge to the community. We release all data and provide further technical details at https://camels-multifield-dataset.readthedocs.io .
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".