MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884590416 · doi:10.37236/8024

Exact Solution of Some Quarter Plane Walks with Interacting Boundaries

2019· preprint· en· W2884590416 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Nicholas R. Beaton, A L Owczarek, Andrew Rechnitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRandom walkContext (archaeology)Boundary (topology)Plane (geometry)Generating functionMathematicsFunction (biology)Set (abstract data type)Quarter (Canadian coin)Algebraic numberKernel (algebra)GeometryStatistical physicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysisComputer scienceStatisticsPhysicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The set of random walks with different step sets (of short steps) in the quarter plane has provided a rich set of models that have profoundly different integrability properties. In particular, 23 of the 79 effectively different models can be shown to have generating functions that are algebraic or differentiably finite. Here we investigate how this integrability may change in those 23 models where in addition to length one also counts the number of sites of the walk touching either the horizontal and/or vertical boundaries of the quarter plane. This is equivalent to introducing interactions with those boundaries in a statistical mechanical context. We are able to solve for the generating function in a number of cases. For example, when counting the total number of boundary sites without differentiating whether they are horizontal or vertical, we can solve the generating function of a generalised Kreweras model. However, in many instances we are not able to solve as the kernel methodology seems to break down when including counts with the boundaries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicAdvanced Combinatorial MathematicsFrench-language works237,207