MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304014072 · doi:10.1103/physreve.106.045304

Parallel computing for mobilities in periodic geometries

2022· article· en· W4304014072 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Magill, Andrew M. Nagel, Hendrick W. de Haan

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputationContext (archaeology)Equivalence (formal languages)Limit (mathematics)MobilitiesStatistical physicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsPhysicsAlgorithmMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine methods for calculating the effective mobilities of molecules driven through periodic geometries in the context of particle-based simulation. The standard formulation of the mobility, based on the long-time limit of the mean drift velocity, is compared to a formulation based on the mean first-passage time of molecules crossing a single period of the system geometry. The equivalence of the two definitions is derived under weaker assumptions than similar conclusions obtained previously, requiring only that the state of the system at subsequent period crossings satisfy the Markov property. Approximate theoretical analyses of the computational costs of estimating these two mobility formulations via particle simulations suggest that the definition based on first-passage times may be substantially better suited to exploiting parallel computation hardware. This claim is investigated numerically on an example system modeling the passage of nanoparticles through the slit-well device. In this case, the traditional mobility formulation is found to perform best when the Péclet number is small, whereas the mean first-passage time formulation is found to converge much more quickly when the Péclet number is moderate or large. The results suggest that, given relatively modest access to modern GPU hardware, this alternative mobility formulation may be an order of magnitude faster than the standard technique for computing effective mobilities of biomolecules through periodic geometries.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicDiffusion and Search DynamicsFrench-language works237,207