MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2536370941 · doi:10.1103/physreve.94.042132

Random walks with fractally correlated traps: Stretched exponential and power-law survival kinetics

2016· article· en· W2536370941 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Plyukhin, Alex V. Plyukhin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom walkPower lawExponential functionStatistical physicsPhysicsKineticsMathematicsMathematical analysisStatisticsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the survival probability $f(t)$ of a random walk with a constant hopping rate $w$ on a host lattice of fractal dimension $d$ and spectral dimension ${d}_{s}\ensuremath{\le}2$, with spatially correlated traps. The traps form a sublattice with fractal dimension ${d}_{a}<d$ and are characterized by the absorption rate ${w}_{a}$ which may be finite (imperfect traps) or infinite (perfect traps). Initial coordinates are chosen randomly at or within a fixed distance of a trap. For weakly absorbing traps (${w}_{a}\ensuremath{\ll}w$), we find that $f(t)$ can be closely approximated by a stretched exponential function over the initial stage of relaxation, with stretching exponent $\ensuremath{\alpha}=1\ensuremath{-}(d\ensuremath{-}{d}_{a})/{d}_{w}$, where ${d}_{w}$ is the random walk dimension of the host lattice. At the end of this initial stage there occurs a crossover to power-law kinetics $f(t)\ensuremath{\sim}{t}^{\ensuremath{-}\ensuremath{\alpha}}$ with the same exponent $\ensuremath{\alpha}$ as for the stretched exponential regime. For strong absorption ${w}_{a}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}w$, including the limit of perfect traps ${w}_{a}\ensuremath{\rightarrow}\ensuremath{\infty}$, the stretched exponential regime is absent and the decay of $f(t)$ follows, after a short transient, the aforementioned power law for all times.

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 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207