MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412629212 · doi:10.1103/3x9p-64w7

Constraining nuclear mass models using <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>r</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> -process observables with multiobjective optimization

2025· article· en· W4412629212 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew R. Mumpower, Nicole Vassh, W. S. Porter, Rebecca Surman

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersTriad National SecurityLos Alamos National LaboratoryNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEmergency Nurses Association FoundationLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsObservableProcess (computing)Computer sciencePhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling nuclear masses, particularly for nuclei far from stability, remains a key objective in nuclear physics. One contemporary approach is machine learning (ML), which trains on experimental data, but can suffer large errors when extrapolating toward neutron-rich species. In nature, such masses shape observables for the rapid neutron capture process ( r process), which in principle could inform ML models. Here, we introduce a multiobjective optimization approach using the Pareto front algorithm. We show that this technique, capable of identifying models that generate r -process abundances aligning with both solar and stellar data, is a promising method to select ML models with reliable extrapolation power.

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)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207