MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400429019 · doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2024.109248

Efficient and scalable prediction of stochastic reaction–diffusion processes using graph neural networks

2024· article· en· W4400429019 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhixing Cao, Rui Chen, Libin Xu, Xinyi Zhou, Xiaoming Fu, Weimin Zhong, Ramon Grima

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Biosciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceComputationGraphPopulationReaction–diffusion systemMonte Carlo methodArtificial neural networkDiffusionTheoretical computer scienceStatistical physicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamics of locally interacting particles that are distributed in space give rise to a multitude of complex behaviours. However the simulation of reaction-diffusion processes which model such systems is highly computationally expensive, the cost increasing rapidly with the size of space. Here, we devise a graph neural network based approach that uses cheap Monte Carlo simulations of reaction-diffusion processes in a small space to cast predictions of the dynamics of the same processes in a much larger and complex space, including spaces modelled by networks with heterogeneous topology. By applying the method to two biological examples, we show that it leads to accurate results in a small fraction of the computation time of standard stochastic simulation methods. The scalability and accuracy of the method suggest it is a promising approach for studying reaction-diffusion processes in complex spatial domains such as those modelling biochemical reactions, population evolution and epidemic spreading.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical BiosciencesSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207