MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091900759 · doi:10.1142/s0218127412502793

METASTABLE SYSTEMS AS RANDOM MAPS

2012· article· en· W2091900759 on OpenAlexaff
Paweł Góra, Abraham Boyarsky, Peyman Eslami

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisjoint setsErgodic theoryInvariant measureMathematicsMetastabilityPiecewiseInvariant (physics)Regular polygonDynamical systems theoryDynamical billiardsPiecewise linear functionStatistical physicsDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metastable dynamical systems were recently studied [González-Tokman et al., 2011] in the framework of one-dimensional piecewise expanding maps on two disjoint invariant sets, each possessing its own ergodic absolutely continuous invariant measure (acim). Under small deterministic perturbations, holes between the two disjoint systems are created, and the two ergodic systems merge into one. The long term dynamics of the newly formed metastable system is defined by the unique acim on the combined ergodic sets. The main result of [González-Tokman et al., 2011] proves that this combined acim can be approximated by a convex combination of the disjoint acims with weights depending on the ratio of the respective measures of the holes. In this note we present an entirely different approach to metastable systems. We consider two piecewise expanding maps: one is the original map, τ 1 , defined on two disjoint invariant sets of ℝ N and the other is a deterministically perturbed version of τ 1 , τ 2 , which allows passage between the two disjoint invariant sets of τ 1 . We model this system by a position dependent random map based on τ 1 and τ 2 , to which we associate position dependent probabilities that reflect the switching between the maps. A typical orbit spends a long time in one of the ergodic sets but eventually switches to the other. Such behavior can be attributed to physical holes as between adjoining billiard tables or more abstract situations where balls can "leap" from one table to the other. Using results for random maps, a result similar to the one-dimensional main result of [González-Tokman et al., 2011] is proved in N dimensions. We also consider holes in more than two invariant sets. A number of examples are presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and ChaosSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207