MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414001643 · doi:10.1016/j.dam.2025.08.042

Entanglement statistics of polymers in a lattice tube and unknotting of 4-plats

2025· article· en· W4414001643 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas R. Beaton, Kai Ishihara, Mahshid Atapour, Jeremy Eng, Mariel Vázquez, Koya Shimokawa, C E Soteros

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Applied Mathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoon City HospitalCapilano University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute CanadaPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsQuantum entanglementCombinatoricsLattice (music)StatisticsQuantum mechanicsQuantumPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Knot Entropy Conjecture states that the exponential growth rate of the number of n -edge lattice polygons with knot-type K is the same as that for unknot polygons. Moreover, the next order growth follows a power law in n with an exponent that increases by one for each prime knot in the knot decomposition of K . We provide the first proof of this conjecture by considering knots and non-split links in tube T ∗ , an ∞ × 2 × 1 sublattice of the simple cubic lattice. We establish upper and lower bounds relating the asymptotics of the number of n -edge polygons with fixed link-type in T ∗ to that of the number of n -edge unknots. For the upper bound, we prove that polygons can be unknotted by braid insertions. For the lower bound, we prove a pattern theorem for unknots using information from exact transfer-matrices. This work provides new knot theory results for 4-plats and new combinatorics results for lattice polygons. Connections to modelling polymers such as DNA in nanochannels are highlighted.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Applied MathematicsSame topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207