MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972613614 · doi:10.4171/owr/2013/20

Extremes in Branching Random Walk and Branching Brownian Motion

2014· article· en· W1972613614 on OpenAlexaff
Louigi Addario‐Berry, Nathanaël Berestycki, Nina Gantert

Bibliographic record

VenueOberwolfach Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBranching (polymer chemistry)Branching random walkBrownian motionRandom walkStatistical physicsBranching processMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Branching random walk (BRW) and branching Brownian motion (BBM) are mathematical models for population growth and spatial displacement. When resources are plentiful, population sizes grow exponentially in time. In such a situation, exceptional (or extreme) individuals will be found far from the bulk of the population. The study of such individuals, and their ancestral lineages, was the subject of the workshop. On one hand, this is a classical topic, with well-known connections to the KPP-equation and to search algorithms. On the other hand, substantial recent developments have recently been obtained via new approaches to the subject (stopping lines and spines, the view from the tip, multivariate analytic combinatorics), or from researchers working in seemingly distinct areas (from stochastic partial differential equations to theoretical physics).

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOberwolfach ReportsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207