MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995941707 · doi:10.3842/sigma.2021.021

Parameter Permutation Symmetry in Particle Systems and Random Polymers

2021· article· en· W2995941707 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leonid Petrov

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry Integrability and Geometry Methods and Applications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBanff International Research Station for Mathematical Innovation and DiscoveryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSymmetry (geometry)Permutation (music)PolymerParticle (ecology)MathematicsStatistical physicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many integrable stochastic particle systems in one space dimension (such as TASEP -totally asymmetric simple exclusion process -and its various deformations, with a notable exception of ASEP) remain integrable when we equip each particle x i with its own jump rate parameter ν i .It is a consequence of integrability that the distribution of each particle x n (t) in a system started from the step initial configuration depends on the parameters ν j , j ≤ n, in a symmetric way.A transposition ν n ↔ ν n+1 of the parameters thus affects only the distribution of x n (t).For q-Hahn TASEP and its degenerations (q-TASEP and directed beta polymer) we realize the transposition ν n ↔ ν n+1 as an explicit Markov swap operator acting on the single particle x n (t).For beta polymer, the swap operator can be interpreted as a simple modification of the lattice on which the polymer is considered.Our main tools are Markov duality and contour integral formulas for joint moments.In particular, our constructions lead to a continuous time Markov process Q (t) preserving the time t distribution of the q-TASEP (with step initial configuration, where t ∈ R >0 is fixed).The dual system is a certain transient modification of the stochastic q-Boson system.We identify asymptotic survival probabilities of this transient process with q-moments of the q-TASEP, and use this to show the convergence of the process Q (t) with arbitrary initial data to its stationary distribution.Setting q = 0, we recover the results about the usual TASEP established recently in [arXiv:1907.09155]by a different approach based on Gibbs ensembles of interlacing particles in two 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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.341 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymmetry Integrability and Geometry Methods and ApplicationsSame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207