MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956071394 · doi:10.1007/s00440-019-00933-1

On the range of lattice models in high dimensions

2019· article· en· W2956071394 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Holmes, Edwin Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueProbability Theory and Related Fields · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsScaling limitLattice (music)Statistical physicsRandom walkConjectureScalingBrownian motionLimitingCombinatoricsBranching random walkDiscrete mathematicsStatisticsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the scaling limit of the range (the set of visited vertices) for a general class of critical lattice models, starting from a single initial particle at the origin. Conditions are given on the random sets and an associated “ancestral relation” under which, conditional on longterm survival, the rescaled ranges converge weakly to the range of super-Brownian motion as random sets. These hypotheses also give precise asymptotics for the limiting behaviour of the probability of exiting a large ball, that is for the extrinsic one-arm probability . We show that these conditions are satisfied by the voter model in dimensions \(d\ge 2\) , sufficiently spread out critical oriented percolation and critical contact processes in dimensions \(d>4\) , and sufficiently spread out critical lattice trees in dimensions \(d>8\) . The latter result proves Conjecture 1.6 of van der Hofstad et al. (Ann Probab 45:278–376, 2017 ) and also has important consequences for the behaviour of random walks on lattice trees in high dimensions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProbability Theory and Related FieldsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207