Bibliographic record
Abstract
Packing of spheres is a problem with a long history dating back to Kepler's conjecture in 1611. The highest density is realized in face-centered-cubic (FCC) and hexagonal-close-packed (HCP) arrangements. These are only limiting examples of an infinite family of maximal-density structures called Barlow stackings. They are constructed by stacking triangular layers, with each layer shifted with respect to the one below. At the other extreme, Torquato-Stillinger stackings are believed to yield the lowest possible density while preserving mechanical stability. They form an infinite family of structures composed of stacked honeycomb layers. In this article, we characterize layer-correlations in both families when the stacking is random. To do so, we take advantage of the H\"agg code---a mapping between a Barlow stacking and a one-dimensional Ising magnet. The layer correlation is related to a moment-generating function of the Ising model. We first determine the layer correlation for random Barlow stacking, finding exponential decay. We next introduce a bias favoring one of two stacking chiralities---equivalent to a magnetic field in the Ising model. Although this bias favors FCC ordering, there is no long-ranged order as correlations still decay exponentially. Finally, we consider Torquato-Stillinger stackings, which map to a combination of an Ising magnet and a three-state Potts model. With random stacking, the correlations decay exponentially with a form that is similar to the Barlow problem. We discuss relevance to ordering in clusters of stacked solids and for layer-deposition-based synthesis methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.008 |
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 teacher head, 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".