Asymptotics of lattice walks via analytic combinatorics in several variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the enumeration of walks on the two-dimensional non-negative integer lattice with steps defined by a finite set S ⊆ {±1, 0}2 . Up to isomorphism there are 79 unique two-dimensional models to consider, and previous work in this area has used the kernel method, along with a rigorous computer algebra approach, to show that 23 of the 79 models admit D-finite generating functions. In 2009, Bostan and Kauers used Pade ́-Hermite approximants to guess differential equations which these 23 generating functions satisfy, in the process guessing asymptotics of their coefficient sequences. In this article we provide, for the first time, a complete rigorous verification of these guesses. Our technique is to use the kernel method to express 19 of the 23 generating functions as diagonals of tri-variate rational functions and apply the methods of analytic combinatorics in several variables (the remaining 4 models have algebraic generating functions and can thus be handled by univariate techniques). This approach also shows the link between combinatorial properties of the models and features of its asymptotics such as asymptotic and polynomial growth factors. In addition, we give expressions for the number of walks returning to the x-axis, the y-axis, and the origin, proving recently conjectured asymptotics of Bostan, Chyzak, van Hoeij, Kauers, and Pech.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".