MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385476359 · doi:10.1107/s1600577523005684

The<i>AXEAP2</i>program for<i>K</i>β X-ray emission spectra analysis using artificial intelligence

2023· article· en· W4385476359 on OpenAlexfundno aff
In-Hui Hwang, Shelly D. Kelly, Maria K. Y. Chan, Eli Stavitski, Steve M. Heald, Sang Wook Han, Nicholas Schwarz, Cheng-Jun Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Synchrotron Radiation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentArgonne National LaboratoryBasic Energy SciencesOffice of ScienceCanadian Light Source
KeywordsX-raySpectral lineEmission spectrumPhysicsOpticsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The processing and analysis of synchrotron data can be a complex task, requiring specialized expertise and knowledge. Our previous work addressed the challenge of X-ray emission spectrum (XES) data processing by developing a standalone application using unsupervised machine learning. However, the task of analyzing the processed spectra remains another challenge. Although the non-resonant Kβ XES of 3d transition metals are known to provide electronic structure information such as oxidation and spin state, finding appropriate parameters to match experimental data is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Here, a new XES data analysis method based on the genetic algorithm is demonstrated, applying it to Mn, Co and Ni oxides. This approach is also implemented as a standalone application, Argonne X-ray Emission Analysis 2 (AXEAP2), which finds a set of parameters that result in a high-quality fit of the experimental spectrum with minimal intervention. AXEAP2 is able to find a set of parameters that reproduce the experimental spectrum, and provide insights into the 3d electron spin state, 3d-3p electron exchange force and Kβ emission core-hole lifetime.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Synchrotron RadiationSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207