MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996497546 · doi:10.37236/8019

On Walks Avoiding a Quadrant

2019· article· en· W2996497546 on OpenAlexaff
Kilian Raschel, Amélie Trotignon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsQuadrant (abdomen)MathematicsRegular polygonRandom walkQueueing theoryInvariant (physics)Mathematical analysisDiscrete mathematicsApplied mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two-dimensional (random) walks in cones are very natural both in combinatorics and probability theory: they are interesting for themselves and also because they are strongly related to other discrete structures. While walks restricted to the first quadrant have been studied a lot, the case of planar, non-convex cones – equivalent to the three-quarter plane after a linear transform – has been approached only recently. In this article we develop an analytic approach to the case of walks in three quadrants. The advantage of this method is to provide uniform treatment in the study of models corresponding to different step sets. After splitting the three quadrants in two symmetric convex cones, the method is composed of three main steps: write a system of functional equations satisfied by the counting generating function, which may be simplified into one single equation under symmetry conditions; transform the functional equation into a boundary value problem; and finally solve this problem, using a concept of anti-Tutte's invariant. The result is a contour-integral expression for the generating function. Such systems of functional equations also appear in queueing theory with the famous Join-the-Shortest-Queue model, which is still an open problem in the non-symmetric case.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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