MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391263731 · doi:10.1039/d3sm01104f

Instantaneous normal modes of glass-forming liquids during the athermal relaxation process of the steepest descent algorithm

2024· article· en· W4391263731 on OpenAlexaff
Masanari Shimada, Kumpei Shiraishi, Hideyuki Mizuno, Atsushi Ikeda

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Dynamics and Properties
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of Tokyo
KeywordsSoft matterRelaxation (psychology)Quenching (fluorescence)Process (computing)Method of steepest descentGradient descentStatistical physicsAlgorithmMaterials scienceDescent (aeronautics)Chemical physicsBiological systemThermodynamicsPhysicsChemistryComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationPhysical chemistryOpticsArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding glass formation by quenching remains a challenge in soft condensed matter physics. Recent numerical studies on steepest descent dynamics, which is one of the simplest models of quenching, revealed that quenched liquids undergo slow relaxation with a power law towards mechanical equilibrium and that the late stage of this process is governed by local rearrangements of particles. These advances motivate the detailed study of instantaneous normal modes during the relaxation process because the glassy dynamics is considered to be governed by stationary points of the potential energy landscape. Here, we performed a normal mode analysis of configurations during the steepest descent dynamics and found that the dynamics is driven by almost flat directions of the potential energy landscape at long times. These directions correspond to localized modes and we characterized them in terms of their statistics and structure using methods developed in the study of local minima of the potential energy landscape.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft MatterSame topicMaterial Dynamics and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207