MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2240463449 · doi:10.1214/16-bjps312

Improved asymptotic estimates for the contact process with stirring

2017· preprint· en· W2240463449 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Levit, Daniel Valesin

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLambdaDimension (graph theory)Vertex (graph theory)CombinatoricsContact process (mathematics)MathematicsRate of convergenceMathematical analysisPhysicsQuantum mechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the contact process with stirring on $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$. In this process, particles occupy vertices of $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$; each particle dies with rate 1 and generates a new particle at a randomly chosen neighboring vertex with rate $\lambda$, provided the chosen vertex is empty. Additionally, particles move according to a symmetric exclusion process with rate $N$. For any $d$ and $N$, there exists $\lambda_{c}$ such that, when the system starts from a single particle, particles go extinct when $\lambda<\lambda_{c}$ and have a chance of being present for all times when $\lambda>\lambda_{c}$. Durrett and Neuhauser proved that $\lambda_{c}$ converges to 1 as $N$ goes to infinity, and Konno, Katori and Berezin and Mytnik obtained dimension-dependent asymptotics for this convergence, which are sharp in dimensions 3 and higher. We obtain a lower bound which is new in dimension 2 and also gives the sharp asymptotics in dimensions 3 and higher. Our proof involves an estimate for two-type renewal processes which is of independent interest.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Probability and StatisticsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207