MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160294205 · doi:10.1103/physreve.67.036116

High precision canonical Monte Carlo determination of the growth constant of square lattice trees

2003· article· en· W2160294205 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLambdaSquare latticeExponentPhysicsLattice (music)ScalingCombinatoricsMonte Carlo methodMathematical physicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsStatisticsIsing modelGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of lattice bond trees in the square lattice (counted modulo translations), ${t}_{n},$ is a basic quantity in lattice statistical mechanical models of branched polymers. This number is believed to have asymptotic behavior given by ${t}_{n}\ensuremath{\sim}A{\ensuremath{\lambda}}^{n}{n}^{\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\theta}},$ where A is an amplitude, $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ is the growth constant, and $\ensuremath{\theta}$ the entropic exponent. In this paper, we show that $\ensuremath{\lambda}$ and $\ensuremath{\theta}$ can be determined to high accuracy by using a canonical Monte Carlo algorithm; we find that $\ensuremath{\lambda}=5.1439\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.0025,$ $\ensuremath{\theta}=1.014\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.022,$ where the error bars are a combined $95$% statistical confidence interval and an estimated systematic error due to uncertainties in modeling corrections to scaling. If one assumes the ``exact value'' $\ensuremath{\theta}=1$ and then determines $\ensuremath{\lambda},$ then the above estimate improves to $\ensuremath{\lambda}=5.14339\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.00072.$ In addition, we also determine the longest path exponent $\ensuremath{\rho}$ and the metric exponent $\ensuremath{\nu}$ from our data: $\ensuremath{\rho}=0.74000\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.00062,$ $\ensuremath{\nu}=0.6437\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}0.0035,$ with error bars similarly a combined $95$% statistical confidence interval and an estimate of the systematic error.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.270 · 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