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 OpenAlexaff
E J Janse van Rensburg, Andrew Rechnitzer

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

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

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topicsSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207