MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309390910 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2248548/v1

Hyperactive learning for data-driven interatomic potentials

2022· preprint· en· W4309390910 on OpenAlexaff
Cas van der Oord, Matthias Sachs, David Kovacs, Christoph Ortner, Gábor Cśanyi

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsInteratomic potentialComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsMolecular dynamicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data-driven interatomic potentials have emerged as a powerful class of surrogate models for ab initio potential energy surfaces that are able to reliably predict macroscopic properties with experimental accuracy. In generating accurate and transferable potentials the most time-consuming and arguably most important task is generating the training set, which still requires significant expert user input. To accelerate this process, this work presents hyperactive learning (HAL), a framework for formulating an accelerated sampling algorithm specifically for the task of training database generation. The key idea is to start from a physically motivated sampler (e.g., molecular dynamics) and add a biasing term that drives the system towards high uncertainty and thus to unseen training configurations. Building on this framework, general protocols for building training databases for alloys and polymers leveraging the HAL framework will be presented. For alloys, ACE potentials for AlSi10 are created by fitting to a minimal HAL-generated database containing 88 configurations (32 atoms each) with fast evaluation times of <100 μs/atom/cpu-core. These potentials are demonstrated to predict the melting temperature with excellent accuracy. For polymers, a HAL database is built using ACE, able to determine the density of a long polyethylene glycol (PEG) polymer formed of 200 monomer units with experimental accuracy by only fitting to small isolated PEG polymers with sizes ranging from 2 to 32.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207