MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078572519 · doi:10.2478/s11534-009-0067-z

Instability transitions and ensemble equivalence in diffusive flow

2009· article· en· W2078572519 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Meesoon Ha

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaKorea Science and Engineering Foundation
KeywordsAsymmetric simple exclusion processScalingStatistical physicsInstabilityPhase transitionPhysicsPeriodic boundary conditionsFlow (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Equivalence (formal languages)Boundary value problemMechanicsMathematicsCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We investigate the critical behavior of one-dimensional (1D) stochastic flow with competing nonlocal and local hopping events, in context of the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) with a defect site in a 1D closed chain. The defect site can effectively generate various boundary conditions, controlling the total number of particles in the system. Both open and periodic-like setups exhibit dynamic instability transitions from a populated finite density phase to an empty road (ER) phase as the nonlocal hopping rate increases. In the stationary populated phase, strong clustering promoted by nonlocal skids drives such transitions and determines their scaling properties. By static and dynamic simulations, we locate such transition points, and discuss their nature and scaling properties. In the open TASEP variant, we numerically establish that the instability transition into the ER phase is second order in the regime where the entry point reservoir controls the current, while it is first order in the regime where the bulk controls the current. Since it is well known that such transitions are absent in the periodic TASEP variant, we compare our results in the open setup with those in the periodic-like setup, and discuss the issue of the ensemble equivalence. Finally, the same discussion is extended to the symmetric cases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen PhysicsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207