MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398231235 · doi:10.1103/physreve.109.054705

Genetic algorithm for the response of arbitrarily twisted nematic liquid crystals to an applied field

2024· article· en· W4398231235 on OpenAlexafffund
Alicia Sit, Francesco Di Colandrea, Alessio D’Errico, Ebrahim Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLiquid Crystal Research Advancements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLiquid crystalField (mathematics)Genetic algorithmAlgorithmMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceCondensed matter physicsMathematicsMathematical optimizationPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When an external field is applied across a liquid-crystal cell, the twist and tilt distributions cannot be calculated analytically and must be extracted numerically. In the standard approach, the Euler-Lagrange equations are derived from the minimization of the free energy of the system and then solved via finite-difference methods, often implemented in commercial software. These tools iterate from initial solutions that are compatible with the boundary conditions, providing limited to no flexibility for customization. Here we present a genetic algorithm that outputs fast and accurate solutions to the integral form of the equations. In our approach, the evolutionary routine is sequentially applied at each position within the bulk of the cell, thus overcoming the necessity of assuming trial solutions. The full range of twist angles from -90^{∘} to 90^{∘} is considered. In this way, the predictions of our routine strongly support the experimentally observed polarization transformations of light incident on different spatially varying twisted nematic liquid-crystal cells, patterned with different topologies on the two alignment layers.

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)0.001
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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicLiquid Crystal Research AdvancementsFrench-language works237,207