Surrogate modeling of Cellular-Potts agent-based models as a segmentation task using the U-Net neural network architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cellular-Potts model is a powerful and ubiquitous framework for developing computational models for simulating complex multicellular biological systems. Cellular-Potts models (CPMs) are often computationally expensive due to the explicit modeling of interactions among large numbers of individual model agents and diffusive fields described by partial differential equations (PDEs). In this work, we develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) surrogate model using a U-Net architecture that accounts for periodic boundary conditions. We use this model to accelerate the evaluation of a mechanistic CPM previously used to investigate in vitro vasculogenesis. The surrogate model was trained to predict 100 computational steps ahead (Monte-Carlo steps, MCS), accelerating simulation evaluations by a factor of 562 times compared to single-core CPM code execution on CPU. Over short timescales of up to 3 recursive evaluations, or 300 MCS, our model captures the emergent behaviors demonstrated by the original Cellular-Potts model such as vessel sprouting, extension and anastomosis, and contraction of vascular lacunae. This approach demonstrates the potential for deep learning to serve as a step toward efficient surrogate models for CPM simulations, enabling faster evaluation of computationally expensive CPM simulations of biological processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".