Benchmarking machine learning strategies for phase-field problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a comprehensive benchmarking framework for evaluating machine-learning approaches applied to phase-field problems. This framework focuses on four key analysis areas crucial for assessing the performance of such approaches in a systematic and structured way. Firstly, interpolation tasks are examined to identify trends in prediction accuracy and accumulation of error over simulation time. Secondly, extrapolation tasks are also evaluated according to the same metrics. Thirdly, the relationship between model performance and data requirements is investigated to understand the impact on predictions and robustness of these approaches. Finally, systematic errors are analyzed to identify specific events or inadvertent rare events triggering high errors. Quantitative metrics evaluating the local and global description of the microstructure evolution, along with other scalar metrics representative of phase-field problems, are used across these four analysis areas. This benchmarking framework provides a path to evaluate the effectiveness and limitations of machine-learning strategies applied to phase-field problems, ultimately facilitating their practical application.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it