MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Apparent superballistic dynamics in one-dimensional random walks with biased detachment

2020· article· en· W3022371612 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsEquidistantAccelerationRandom walkJumpTrajectoryDisplacement (psychology)Range (aeronautics)DiffusionDynamics (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mean-squared displacement (MSD) is an averaged quantity widely used to assess anomalous diffusion. In many cases, such as molecular motors with finite processivity, the dynamics of the system of interest produce trajectories of varying duration. Here, we explore the effects of finite processivity on different measures of the MSD. We do so by investigating a deceptively simple dynamical system: a one-dimensional random walk (with equidistant jump lengths, symmetric move probabilities, and constant step duration) with an origin-directed detachment bias. By tuning the time dependence of the detachment bias, we find through analytical calculations and trajectory simulations that the system can exhibit a broad range of anomalous diffusion, extending beyond conventional diffusion to superdiffusion and even superballistic motion. We analytically determine that protocols with a time-increasing detachment lead to an ensemble-averaged velocity increasing in time, thereby providing the effective acceleration that is required to push the system above the ballistic threshold. An MSD analysis of burnt-bridges ratchets similarly reveals superballistic behavior. Because superdiffusive MSDs are often used to infer biased, motorlike dynamics, these findings provide a cautionary tale for dynamical interpretation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcationFrench-language works237,207