MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explosive Percolation is Continuous, but with Unusual Finite Size Behavior

2011· article· en· W2087101668 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Grassberger, Claire Christensen, Golnoosh Bizhani, Seung‐Woo Son, Maya Paczuski

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsUniversality (dynamical systems)ExponentScalingObservableCritical exponentCluster sizePercolation (cognitive psychology)Explosive materialPhase transitionCombinatoricsCondensed matter physicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study four Achlioptas-type processes with ``explosive'' percolation transitions. All transitions are clearly continuous, but their finite size scaling functions are not entirely holomorphic. The distributions of the order parameter, i.e., the relative size ${s}_{\mathrm{max}}/N$ of the largest cluster, are double humped. But---in contrast to first-order phase transitions---the distance between the two peaks decreases with system size $N$ as ${N}^{\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\eta}}$ with $\ensuremath{\eta}>0$. We find different positive values of $\ensuremath{\beta}$ (defined via $⟨{s}_{\mathrm{max}}/N⟩\ensuremath{\sim}(p\ensuremath{-}{p}_{c}{)}^{\ensuremath{\beta}}$ for infinite systems) for each model, showing that they are all in different universality classes. In contrast, the exponent $\ensuremath{\Theta}$ (defined such that observables are homogeneous functions of $(p\ensuremath{-}{p}_{c}){N}^{\ensuremath{\Theta}}$) is close to---or even equal to---$1/2$ for all models.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations182
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207