MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212880126 · doi:10.3390/nano12040633

Instantaneous Property Prediction and Inverse Design of Plasmonic Nanostructures Using Machine Learning: Current Applications and Future Directions

2022· review· en· W4212880126 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinkai Xu, Dipesh Aggarwal, Karthik Shankar

Bibliographic record

VenueNanomaterials · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence FundUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPlasmonInverseProperty (philosophy)Current (fluid)NanostructureInverse problemMaterials scienceComputer scienceNanotechnologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematicsOptoelectronicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in plasmonic materials and devices have given rise to a variety of applications in photocatalysis, microscopy, nanophotonics, and metastructures. With the advent of computing power and artificial neural networks, the characterization and design process of plasmonic nanostructures can be significantly accelerated using machine learning as opposed to conventional FDTD simulations. The machine learning (ML) based methods can not only perform with high accuracy and return optical spectra and optimal design parameters, but also maintain a stable high computing efficiency without being affected by the structural complexity. This work reviews the prominent ML methods involved in forward simulation and inverse design of plasmonic nanomaterials, such as Convolutional Neural Networks, Generative Adversarial Networks, Genetic Algorithms and Encoder-Decoder Networks. Moreover, we acknowledge the current limitations of ML methods in the context of plasmonics and provide perspectives on future research directions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNanomaterialsSame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207