MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619708183 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2017.0494

The grasshopper problem

2017· article· en· W2619708183 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueFoundational Questions InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGrasshopperLawnSimulated annealingPlanarParallel temperingFixed point

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce and physically motivate the following problem in geometric combinatorics, originally inspired by analysing Bell inequalities. A grasshopper lands at a random point on a planar lawn of area 1. It then jumps once, a fixed distance d , in a random direction. What shape should the lawn be to maximize the chance that the grasshopper remains on the lawn after jumping? We show that, perhaps surprisingly, a disc-shaped lawn is not optimal for any d &gt;0. We investigate further by introducing a spin model whose ground state corresponds to the solution of a discrete version of the grasshopper problem. Simulated annealing and parallel tempering searches are consistent with the hypothesis that, for d &lt; π −1/2 , the optimal lawn resembles a cogwheel with n cogs, where the integer n is close to <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>π</mml:mi> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:mi>arcsin</mml:mi> <mml:mo>⁡</mml:mo> <mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo> <mml:msqrt> <mml:mi>π</mml:mi> </mml:msqrt> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> <mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> . We find transitions to other shapes for <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> <mml:mo>≳</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mi>π</mml:mi> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>/</mml:mo> </mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207