MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Modeling the Complexity of Elliptic Black Hole Solution In 4D Using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo with Stacked Neural Networks

2023· preprint· en· W4385498299 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Hatefi, Armin Hatefi, Roberto J. López-Sastre

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodBlack hole (networking)Artificial neural networkNonlinear systemHybrid Monte CarloHamiltonian systemEquations of motionPhysicsAxionHamiltonian (control theory)Applied mathematicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceAlgorithmClassical mechanicsMathematicsMathematical optimizationMarkov chain Monte CarloArtificial intelligenceParticle physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the black hole solution of self-similar gravitational collapse in the Einstein-axion-dilaton system for the elliptic class in four dimensions. The solution is invariant under space-time dilation, which is combined with internal SL(2,R) transformations. Due to the complex and highly nonlinear pattern of the equations of motion in the physics of black holes, researchers typically have to use various numerical techniques to make the equations tractable to estimate the parameters and the critical solutions. To this end, they have to ignore the numerical measurement errors in estimating the parameters. To our knowledge, for the first time in the literature on axion-dilation systems, we propose to estimate the critical collapse functions in a Bayesian framework. We develop a novel methodology to translate the modelling of the complexity of the elliptic black hole to a sampling problem using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo with stacked neural networks. Unlike methods in the literature, this probabilistic approach enables us not only to recover the available deterministic solution but also to explore possibly all physically distinguishable self-similar solutions that may occur due to numerical measurement errors.

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)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.161 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→