MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318062471 · doi:10.1103/physreve.90.062138

First-passage times, mobile traps, and Hopf bifurcations

2014· article· en· W2318062471 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin C. Tzou, Shuangquan Xie, Théodore Kolokolnikov

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTrap (plumbing)Hopf bifurcationUniquenessStatistical physicsRandom walkPhysicsBifurcationMathematicsMathematical analysisQuantum mechanicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a random walk on a confined one-dimensional domain, we consider mean first-passage times (MFPT) in the presence of a mobile trap. The question we address is whether a mobile trap can improve capture times over a stationary trap. We consider two scenarios: a randomly moving trap and an oscillating trap. In both cases, we find that a stationary trap actually performs better (in terms of reducing expected capture time) than a very slowly moving trap; however, a trap moving sufficiently fast performs better than a stationary trap. We explicitly compute the thresholds that separate the two regimes. In addition, we find a surprising relation between the oscillating trap problem and a moving-sink problem that describes reduced dynamics of a single spike in a certain regime of the Gray-Scott model. Namely, the above-mentioned threshold corresponds precisely to a Hopf bifurcation that induces oscillatory motion in the location of the spike. We use this correspondence to prove the uniqueness of the Hopf bifurcation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicDiffusion and Search DynamicsFrench-language works237,207