Data-driven optimal closures for mean-cluster models: Beyond the classical pair approximation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study concerns the mean-clustering approach to modeling the evolution of lattice dynamics. Instead of tracking the state of individual lattice sites, this approach describes the time evolution of the concentrations of different cluster types. It leads to an infinite hierarchy of ordinary differential equations which must be closed by truncation using a so-called closure condition. This condition approximates the concentrations of higher-order clusters in terms of the concentrations of lower-order ones. The pair approximation is the most common form of closure. Here, we consider its generalization, termed the "optimal approximation," which we calibrate using a robust data-driven strategy. To fix attention, we focus on a recently proposed structured lattice model for a nickel-based oxide, similar to that used as cathode material in modern commercial Li-ion batteries. The form of the obtained optimal approximation allows us to deduce a simple sparse closure model. In addition to being more accurate than the classical pair approximation, this "sparse approximation" is also physically interpretable which allows us to a posteriori refine the hypotheses underlying construction of this class of closure models. Moreover, the mean-cluster model closed with this sparse approximation is linear and hence analytically solvable such that its parametrization is straightforward, although it offers a good approximation of the actual time evolution of the cluster concentrations on short timescales only. On the other hand, parametrization of the mean-cluster model closed with the pair approximation is shown to lead to an ill-posed inverse problem.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".