Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the long-time behavior of double branching annihilating random walkers with nearest-neighbor dependent rates. The system consists of even number of particles which can execute nearest-neighbor random walk and they can as well give birth in a parity conserving manner to two other particles with rates $1$ and $b$, respectively, until they meet. Upon meeting, each of the adjacent particles can branch with rate $p\cdot b$ while it can annihilate, i.e. hop on, the other particle with rate $p$ for some $0< p\leq 1$. This process first appeared in the article by D. ben Avraham, F. Leyvraz and S. Redner (Propagation and extinction in branching annihilating random walks, Phys. Rev. E 50(3), 1994) and can be considered as the extension of Sudbury's model (The branching annihilating process: an interacting particle system, Ann. Probab., 18(2), 1990). We prove that in some region of the parameters $(p,b)$, the process survives with positive probability. Combining with Sudbury's extinction result it shows a phase transition phenomenon for this model. In some sense our result also shows the sharpness of the assumptions of the article by M. Balázs and A. L. Nagy (Dependent double branching annihilating random walk, Electron. J. Probab., 20(84), 2015). We use similar arguments that was developed by M. Bramson and L. Gray in their article titled "The survival of branching annihilating random walk" (Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete, 68(4), 1985).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".