Unraveling the hidden complexity of quasideterministic ratchets: Random walks, graphs, and circle maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brownian ratchets are shown to feature a nontrivial vanishing-noise limit where the dynamics is reduced to a stochastic alternation between two deterministic circle maps (quasideterministic ratchets). Motivated by cooperative dynamics of molecular motors, here we solve exactly the problem of two interacting quasideterministic ratchets. We show that the dynamics can be described as a random walk on a graph that is specific to each set of parameters. We compute point by point the exact velocity-force V(f) function as a summation over all paths in the specific graph for each f, revealing a complex structure that features self-similarity and nontrivial continuity properties. From a general perspective, we unveil that the alternation of two simple piecewise linear circle maps unfolds a very rich variety of dynamical complexity, in particular the phenomenon of piecewise chaos, where chaos emerges from the combination of nonchaotic maps. We show convergence of the finite-noise case to our exact solution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".