MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127466874 · doi:10.1214/07-aap473

Slow convergence in bootstrap percolation

2008· article· en· W2127466874 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Janko Gravner, Alexander E. Holroyd

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Probability · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMicrosoft ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsPercolation (cognitive psychology)CombinatoricsLimit (mathematics)Square (algebra)Contrast (vision)Convergence (economics)Statistical physicsApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the bootstrap percolation model, sites in an L×L square are initially infected independently with probability p. At subsequent steps, a healthy site becomes infected if it has at least two infected neighbors. As (L, p)→(∞, 0), the probability that the entire square is eventually infected is known to undergo a phase transition in the parameter p log L, occurring asymptotically at λ=π2/18 [Probab. Theory Related Fields 125 (2003) 195–224]. We prove that the discrepancy between the critical parameter and its limit λ is at least Ω((log L)−1/2). In contrast, the critical window has width only Θ((log L)−1). For the so-called modified model, we prove rigorous explicit bounds which imply, for example, that the relative discrepancy is at least 1% even when L=103000. Our results shed some light on the observed differences between simulations and rigorous asymptotics.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.089 · 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied ProbabilitySame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207