MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396849416 · doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad4ae5

Reducing training data needs with minimal multilevel machine learning (M3L)

2024· article· en· W4396849416 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefan Heinen, Danish Khan, Guido Falk von Rudorff, Konstantin Karandashev, Daniel Jose Arismendi Arrieta, Alastair J. A. Price, Surajit Nandi, Arghya Bhowmik, Kersti Hermansson, O. Anatole von Lilienfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning Science and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanada First Research Excellence FundVetenskapsrådetUniversity of TorontoEuropean CommissionCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Computer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTraining setGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For many machine learning applications in science, data acquisition, not training, is the bottleneck even when avoiding experiments and relying on computation and simulation. Correspondingly, and in order to reduce cost and carbon footprint, training data efficiency is key. We introduce minimal multilevel machine learning (M3L) which optimizes training data set sizes using a loss function at multiple levels of reference data in order to minimize a combination of prediction error with overall training data acquisition costs (as measured by computational wall-times). Numerical evidence has been obtained for calculated atomization energies and electron affinities of thousands of organic molecules at various levels of theory including HF, MP2, DLPNO-CCSD(T), DFHFCABS, PNOMP2F12, and PNOCCSD(T)F12, and treating them with basis sets TZ, cc-pVTZ, and AVTZ-F12. Our M3L benchmarks for reaching chemical accuracy in distinct chemical compound sub-spaces indicate substantial computational cost reductions by factors of ∼1.01, 1.1, 3.8, 13.8, and 25.8 when compared to heuristic sub-optimal multilevel machine learning (M2L) for the data sets QM7b, QM9 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mi/> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>LCCSD</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , Electrolyte Genome Project, QM9 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mi/> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>AE</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>CCSD</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , and QM9 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mi/> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>EA</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>CCSD</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mi mathvariant="normal">T</mml:mi> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , respectively. Furthermore, we use M2L to investigate the performance for 76 density functionals when used within multilevel learning and building on the following levels drawn from the hierarchy of Jacobs Ladder: LDA, GGA, mGGA, and hybrid functionals. Within M2L and the molecules considered, mGGAs do not provide any noticeable advantage over GGAs. Among the functionals considered and in combination with LDA, the three on average top performing GGA and Hybrid levels for atomization energies on QM9 using M3L correspond respectively to PW91, KT2, B97D, and τ -HCTH, B3LYP <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>∗</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> (VWN5), and TPSSH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
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 science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Learning Science and TechnologySame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207