MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902037584 · doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab0981

Knotting statistics for polygons in lattice tubes*

2019· article· en· W2902037584 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas R. Beaton, Jeremy Eng, C E Soteros

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute CanadaPacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)Polygon (computer graphics)ExponentMonte Carlo methodMathematicsRegular polygonPoint in polygonCombinatoricsLattice (music)Statistical physicsStatisticsGeometryPhysicsComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study several related models of self-avoiding polygons in a tubular subgraph of the simple cubic lattice, with a particular interest in the asymptotics of the knotting statistics. Polygons in a tube can be characterised by a finite transfer matrix, and this allows for the derivation of pattern theorems, calculation of growth rates and exact enumeration. We also develop a static Monte Carlo method which allows us to sample polygons of a given size directly from a chosen Boltzmann distribution. Using these methods we accurately estimate the growth rates of unknotted polygons in the and tubes, and confirm that these are the same for any fixed knot-type K . We also confirm that the entropic exponent for unknots is the same as that of all polygons, and that the exponent for fixed knot-type K depends only on the number of prime factors in the knot decomposition of K . For the simplest knot-types, this leads to a good approximation for the polygon size at which the probability of the given knot-type is maximized, and in some cases we are able to sample sufficiently long polygons to observe this numerically.

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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207