MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220817392 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu22-1954

Predicting Heterogeneous Ice Nucleation via Short-time Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Machine Learning Approaches

2022· preprint· en· W4220817392 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Soni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleationIce nucleusMolecular dynamicsSupercoolingChemical physicsParticle (ecology)ChemistryHomogeneousMaterials sciencePhysicsStatistical physicsThermodynamicsComputational chemistryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heterogeneous ice nucleation (HIN) has various applications in the fields of atmospheric science, food preservation, and nanotechnology. Pure water can be supercooled to ∼−38 °C, and homogeneous ice nucleation at temperatures warmer than ∼−20 °C has essentially zero probability, even on the time scale of the universe. Thus, much of the freezing that occurs on the Earth’s surface or in the atmosphere occurs via a heterogeneous mechanism involving an ice nucleating particle (INP). These INPs can be mineral dust, soots, pollen, or bacteria. Generally, ice nucleation experiments identify substrates that act as efficient ice nuclei but lack sufficient spatial (nm) and/or temporal (ns) resolution to address basic mechanistic questions. Recently, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of model systems have attempted to reveal the basic mechanism of ice nucleation and the fundamental molecular features of various good INPs. However, the large amount of computational cost required to cross the nucleation barrier and observe HIN in simulations is a current concern. Here, we employ information obtained from short MD simulations of water in contact with surfaces to predict the likelihood that particular surfaces would nucleate ice, or not, in sufficiently long simulations, or possibly in experiments. For prediction, we incorporated several supervised and unsupervised machine learning (ML) models. We considered various atomistic substrates with some surfaces differing from others, only in terms of lattice parameters, surface morphology, or surface charges. Various water features near the surface are extracted from MD simulations over a time interval where ice nucleation has not initiated. We find that the interplay of surface properties and local liquid water properties determines good/bad INPs, with the liquid water properties being dominant. The accuracy of our best ML classification model is 0.89 ± 0.05. Some of the important descriptors are interfacial icelike structures, hydrogen bonding to the surface, water density and water polarization near the surface, and the two-dimensional lattice match to ice. Taken altogether, we expect that this work will be a useful contribution in the field of HIN research and serve as a guide in the design of substrates that can promote or discourage ice nucleation.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→