diff --git a/notes/venue-retrieval-p2-20260909.md b/notes/venue-retrieval-p2-20260909.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..5a6c3b84 --- /dev/null +++ b/notes/venue-retrieval-p2-20260909.md @@ -0,0 +1,312 @@ +# P2 venue retrieval — independent primary-source pass (issue #694) + +**Date:** 2026-09-09. **Machine:** local. **Scope:** retrieval and notes only. No census re-run, no +PSLQ re-run, no Huawei, no edits to `docs/STATUS.md` / `docs/ROADMAP.md` / the P2 draft. + +**Input read in the clone:** `docs/manuscripts/p2-algebraic-exclusion/manuscript.md` (abstract, §1.3, §1.4, +§2.1, §4.2–4.3, §6.5–6.6, §8, Target-venue paragraph), `docs/manuscripts/p2-algebraic-exclusion/README.md` +(claims A–F′, open items), `data/literature_threshold_sources.json` (provenance manifest). + +The "Prior Grok assessment" in the ticket was stress-tested, not copied. Every claim below carries a source +status tag: `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ` (full or substantive text fetched and read), `ABSTRACT_ONLY` +(publisher/abstract page fetched, full text not read), `[LIT]` (identified, not fetched), `[SECONDARY]` +(compilation page, not a primary source). URLs were fetched this session unless tagged otherwise. + +--- + +## Q2. The four source papers and this journal + +All four confirmed on fetched IOPscience article pages, plus the journal scope page. + +| Source | Verified citation | Status | +|---|---|---| +| Jacobsen 2015 | Jesper Lykke Jacobsen, *Critical points of Potts and O(N) models from eigenvalue identities in periodic Temperley–Lieb algebras*, **J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48 (2015) 454003**, published 20 Oct 2015. DOI 10.1088/1751-8113/48/45/454003 | `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ` (abstract page; abstract states `p_c = 0.592 746 050 792 10(2)` for square-site percolation, `n_max = 21`) — https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8113/48/45/454003 | +| Mertens 2022 | Stephan Mertens, *Exact site-percolation probability on the square lattice*, **J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55 (2022) 334002**. DOI 10.1088/1751-8121/ac4195 | `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ` (arXiv 2109.12102 full text) — IOP page: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ac4195 | +| Yang–Zhou 2024 (Comment) | Yi Yang and Shuigeng Zhou, *Comment on 'Critical points of Potts and O(N) models…'*, **J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57 (2024) 258001**, published 6 Jun 2024. DOI 10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d2c | `ABSTRACT_ONLY` — https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d2c | +| Jacobsen 2024 (Reply) | Jesper Lykke Jacobsen, *Reply to Comment on 'Critical points of Potts and O(N) models…'*, **J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 57 (2024) 258002**, published 6 Jun 2024. DOI 10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d33 | `ABSTRACT_ONLY` (IOP page fetched; abstract is a one-line cross-reference, also confirmed via Semantic Scholar) — https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d33 | + +Mertens 2022 final estimates, verified from the arXiv full text (eqs. 25a/25b): + +> `p_c = 0.592 746 050 786(3) (p_med), p_c = 0.592 746 050 60(8) (p_cell).` + +These match `data/literature_threshold_sources.json` exactly. + +Yang–Zhou 2024 abstract (fetched from the IOP page), quoted verbatim in the decisive clause: + +> "Our calculation shows that the current best result of pc=0.59274605079210(2) by Jacobsen (2015 J. Phys. +> A: Math. Theor. 48 454003) is incorrect and the corrected value should be 0.5927460507896(1)." + +### J. Phys. A scope, from the publisher about page (fetched 2026-09-09) + +From https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/journals/journal-of-physics-a-mathematical-and-theoretical/about-journal-physics-mathematical-theoretical/ : + +> "To be acceptable for publication in the journal, papers must make significant, original and correct +> contributions to one or more of the topics within these sections. **Mathematical papers should be clearly +> motivated by actual or potential application to physical phenomena. Algorithmic papers are encouraged and +> should contain clear physical background and theoretical motivations.**" + +Relevant section listings on the same page: + +- Statistical physics — "exactly solvable models in statistical mechanics"; "statistical mechanics, phase + transitions and critical phenomena"; "**numerical and computational methods, analysis of algorithms**"; + "lattice models, random walks and combinatorics". +- Mathematical physics — "**algebraic structures and number theory**"; "**numerical approximation and + analysis**"; "**computational methods**". + +Note: the plain IOPscience `/journal/1751-8121/about` URL 404s; the scope page above is the publisher's +current canonical "About" page (fetched successfully). The `/journal/1751-8121` home page resolves but +carries no scope text. + +### Correction for the record: Scullard 2006 venue + +`PRIMARY_TEXT_READ` — Christian R. Scullard, *Exact site percolation thresholds using a site-to-bond +transformation and the star-triangle transformation*, **Phys. Rev. E 73, 016107 (2006)**, published +10 Jan 2006. Not J. Phys. A. Abstract, quoted from the fetched APS full text: + +> "The primary lattice studied here, the 'martini lattice,' is a hexagonal lattice with every second site +> transformed into a triangle. The site threshold of this lattice is found to be 0.764826…, i.e., the +> solution to p4 − 3p3 + 1 = 0, while the others have (√5 − 1)/2 (the inverse of the golden ratio) and 1/√2." + +This is the primary the draft cites as `[LIT: primary text not verified]` in §1.1 for the martini-lattice +thresholds. The fetch confirms the threshold claims; the draft's `[LIT]` marker can be cleared by a future +draft-revision ticket (not done here — this ticket does not edit the draft's claims). + +--- + +## Q1. Comparable published work (certified vs heuristic, decimal vs interval) + +Three primary papers fetched and read; none of them certifies a null against an *interval*. That absence is +itself the finding: the manuscript's §1.2 diagnosis matches the primary texts, and its "as far as we know, +absent from the integer-relation literature" claim for sensitivity-certified nulls (§8, item 3) survived +this search. + +**1. Bailey–Borwein–Girgensohn 1994 — `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`.** David H. Bailey, Jonathan M. Borwein, Roland +Girgensohn, *Experimental evaluation of Euler sums*, **Experimental Mathematics 3(1) (1994) 17–30**. +Full text fetched from https://www.davidhbailey.com/dhbpapers/eulsum-em.pdf (journal copy: +https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10586458.1994.10504573). Content: PSLQ-based identification of +Euler sums as rational linear combinations of zeta values and log 2. Certification status, quoted: + +> "It should be emphasized that the results in Table 3 are not established in any rigorous mathematical +> sense by these calculations. However, in each case the 'confidence level' (see Section 3) of these +> detections is better than 10^-50, and in most cases is in the neighborhood of 10^-100." + +Target form: a single high-precision decimal of an exact constant — not an interval, not a measured +physical quantity. Heuristic, positive-only. + +**2. Bailey–Broadhurst 2001 — `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`.** David H. Bailey, David J. Broadhurst, *Parallel +Integer Relation Detection: Techniques and Applications*, **Mathematics of Computation 70 (2001) +1719–1736**. Full text fetched from https://www.davidhbailey.com/dhbpapers/ppslq.pdf (AMS page: +https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/2001-70-236/S0025-5718-00-01278-3/). Content: parallel PSLQ +("PSLQ++"), applications to QFT sums and a chaos-theory constant. Certification status, quoted: + +> "The ratio between the smallest and the largest y entry when a relation is detected can be taken as a +> 'confidence level' that the relation is a true relation and not an artifact of insufficient numeric +> precision. Very small ratios at detection, such as 10^-100, almost certainly denote a true relation, +> although of course such results do not constitute a rigorous proof." + +Note the paper's framing of what an integer-relation algorithm *can* do in the null direction: "or can +produce bounds within which no integer relation exists" — but the applications in the paper are all +detections, and no certified non-existence theorem over an enumerated class is reported. Target form: +high-precision decimals of exact constants; no interval. + +**3. Scullard 2006 — `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`** (see Q2). Comparable in *spirit* rather than method: it +certifies exact thresholds by construction (site-to-bond + star–triangle), i.e. the kind of certified +result about percolation thresholds that physics venues publish. It performs no search against a measured +constant. + +**4. Jacobsen 2015 — `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ` (abstract)** is the nearest in-field analogue: a certified +transfer-matrix/eigenvalue *computation* feeding a *non-certified extrapolation* to produce the target +itself. Useful for the venue argument; not a relation search. + +**[LIT] identified, not fetched (recorded so nobody has to re-derive them):** + +- W. P. Orrick, B. Nickel, A. Guttmann, J. H. H. Perk, *The susceptibility of the square lattice Ising + model: new developments*, **J. Stat. Phys. 102 (2001) 1113** — identification of exact Ising + susceptibility structure from high-precision numerics; candidate J. Stat. Phys. analogue, unfetched. +- Heuristic decimal-target identifications of physical constants (fine-structure-constant style claims) + exist widely in the literature but none certified; none fetched, so none is quoted here. + +**Summary answer to Q1.** The published tradition is (a) PSLQ/integer-relation *detection* at a rounded or +high-precision decimal of an exact constant, explicitly non-rigorous (both Bailey-school quotes above); +(b) certified *derivations* of exact thresholds (Scullard-type), which search nothing. A **complete +certified census of an enumerated polynomial class against a measured constant at its quoted precision** +has no fetched precedent, and none of the comparables searches an interval rather than a decimal. This +confirms the manuscript's §1.2 framing and supports its novelty claim for the boundary-degree criterion +(§4.3) and the planted-root null control (§6.4). + +--- + +## Q3. Is the disjointness remark known? + +**Refine, in both directions.** + +*What the literature already states (pairwise, informally):* + +- Mertens 2022 (`PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`, arXiv full text, after eq. 25): + > "The first value deviates from the reference value (19) by 2 errorbars, the second by 2.5 errorbars." + where (19) is Jacobsen's `0.592 746 050 792 10(2)`. Mertens also reports his `p_pol` estimator, + `p_c = 0.592 746 050 792 0(4)` (eq. 26), which "agrees with Jacobsen's value (19) within the errorbars". +- Yang–Zhou 2024 (`ABSTRACT_ONLY`) flatly asserts Jacobsen 2015 "is incorrect", with corrected value + `0.5927460507896(1)`; Jacobsen 2024's Reply (`ABSTRACT_ONLY`) exists — the pair is a published, + unresolved dispute inside one journal issue. + +So "some of these estimates disagree" is **not** new: two of the four source papers say so about specific +pairs, in print. + +*What this search did not find:* any source that assembles the intervals at their quoted precisions and +states the **four-way pairwise disjointness**, or states the consequence that **no pooled interval is +defensible and every exact-search claim must be reported per interval**. The community compilation +practice, checked on the Wikipedia *Percolation threshold* page (`[SECONDARY]`, +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_threshold, fetched 2026-09-09), is to list fifteen square-site +determinations side by side in one table row — including `0.59274605079210(2)` [Jacobsen15], +`0.592746050786(3)` [ref 28], `0.5927460507896(1)` [ref 29] and an additional `0.59274605079016(1)` +[ref 30, identity not confirmed in this pass] — without remarking that several of these mutually exclude +each other at their own quoted uncertainties. Listing-not-pooling is the implicit acknowledgment of the +problem; no fetched source makes the methodological statement. + +**Refinement for the draft (goes to the PR discussion, not the draft):** §2.1's novelty should be worded +as *systematizing a disagreement each author noted only pairwise, at one estimator's own precision*, not +as a first observation that the estimates differ. Mertens's own `p_pol` value agreeing with Jacobsen is +worth a sentence in that discussion: the disjointness is between *estimator families*, and one of +Mertens's three estimators sits with Jacobsen — which strengthens, rather than weakens, the +"targets must be plural" conclusion of §8 item 1, since even one paper's internal estimators span +incompatible intervals. + +No consensus `p_c` value pooling these four was found in this pass. + +--- + +## Q4. Venue fit, independently assessed + +**Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical — fit (primary).** +Independent grounds, beyond the Grok argument: +- The publisher scope page *explicitly* invites exactly this hybrid: "Algorithmic papers are encouraged + and should contain clear physical background and theoretical motivations", and both relevant sections + list "numerical and computational methods, analysis of algorithms" (Statistical physics) and + "algebraic structures and number theory" / "computational methods" (Mathematical physics). A certified + census against a percolation threshold sits in the intersection of those listings. +- Closest analogue: **Mertens 2022** — a single-author exact-algorithm paper about square-site percolation + whose estimates section is the paper's physics payoff — same journal, same constant, same structure + (algorithm + the constant). `PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`. +- All five documents the paper corrects or consumes (2015 paper, 2022 paper, 2024 Comment, 2024 Reply) + are in this journal, verified above. + +**Experimental Mathematics — fit (fallback, genuine).** Scope, quoted from the publisher aims page +(`ABSTRACT_ONLY`, https://amstat.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=uexm20): +> "Experimental Mathematics publishes original papers featuring formal results inspired by +> experimentation, conjectures suggested by experiments, and data supporting significant hypotheses." +> … "New theorems proved with the help of experimental results are highly acceptable" … "Computer +> experiments should be reported in such a way that they can be repeated by other researchers." + +The census is a formal result *of* a computer experiment with a repeatability supplement (§9) — the scope +fits almost verbatim. Closest analogue: **Bailey–Borwein–Girgensohn 1994, Exp. Math. 3(1) 17–30** +(`PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`) — but note it is heuristic and positive; **neither venue has a published precedent +for a certified *null* integer-relation census**, which is exactly the gap this paper occupies wherever +it lands. + +**Mathematics of Computation — stretch.** Analogue: Bailey–Broadhurst 2001, Math. Comp. 70 (2001) +1719–1736 (`PRIMARY_TEXT_READ`) — but that paper is an *algorithm* paper (parallel PSLQ) with +applications; MoC would want the screening method itself as the contribution, and Theorem 2 is a bound +whose proof is elementary (MVT + rounding). The percolation target would read as application. Possible, +not recommended first. + +**Journal of Statistical Physics / JSTAT / PRE — wrong as written, with one nuance.** Nuance: PRE *does* +publish exact-threshold derivations (Scullard 2006 is PRE 73, 016107, verified above), so the *field* +publishes there. But this manuscript derives nothing physical: no mechanism, no new estimate, no critical +phenomenon — it certifies the absence of a form. Closest J. Stat. Phys. analogue: Orrick–Nickel– +Guttmann–Perk 2001 (`[LIT]`, unfetched — identification work, and 25 years old; no recent analogue +found). JSTAT: no analogue found. + +**Journal of Algebra / number-theory journals — wrong.** No analogue found in this pass: the exclusion +theorem's content is entirely about the complexity class vs a physics constant; the number-theoretic +skeleton (Prop. 1, Thm 2) is elementary, and nothing in the paper is a statement about polynomials as +such. Agree with Grok point 5, now with the scope-page asymmetry as evidence: JPA's own scope lists +"algebraic structures and number theory" *motivated by physical phenomena*; a pure venue has no such +bridge. + +--- + +## Q5. Desk-reject risks — what an editor would actually say + +- **"Insufficient physics" (JPA).** Real but mitigable: the disjointness finding (§2.1) is a + physics-literature correction, and JPA published the pure-algorithm Mertens 2022. The framing note in + the draft's Target-venue paragraph (lead with the census, not the methodology) is the right defense. + Moderate risk, not a desk-reject. +- **"The class is arbitrary."** Real at every venue, and the draft already carries the two-part defense + (§4.2.1 concedes the historical range is a selected sample; §4.3 supplies a literature-free stop rule). + An editor who reads only the abstract can still bounce it; the abstract should keep the + "degree 4 = boundary degree" sentence, since it is the answer to the objection. +- **"Negative computational result."** Real at Math. Comp. and pure venues; explicitly *not* real at + Experimental Mathematics (scope quote above welcomes formal results from experiments); at JPA it + converts into the disjointness correction. Venue-dependent, not intrinsic. +- **"The height bound is already broken by bow-tie thresholds."** True as a fact (§4.2: Wierman 1984 + height 6; Ziff–Scullard 2006 degree 11 at height 36) and already conceded in the draft — §4.2, §6.6 + and §8.1 all restate it. A skimming referee could still raise it; a footnote-level pointer in the + abstract ("no form at the complexity of any *known exact planar threshold*…" is already gone from the + draft — good) is the only remaining exposure. The draft's withdrawn phrasing ("we withdraw that + phrasing", §6.6) means this objection no longer has a target in the text. + +--- + +## Stress-test of the prior Grok assessment, claim by claim + +1. **"First venue should be J. Phys. A because three of the four intervals come from that journal."** + **Agree, with a stronger and a weaker finding.** Stronger: all four *plus* the Reply are verified JPA + (Q2 table), and the publisher scope page explicitly solicits algorithmic papers with physical + background — Grok's argument rests on reader proximity alone and misses that the journal's stated + scope covers the paper's genre. Weaker: the "correction does not reach the people it is about" + premise needs care — the *disagreement* has already reached them (Mertens's 2/2.5-errorbar remark; + the Comment/Reply exchange). What has not reached anyone is the *systematic four-way statement and + its no-pooling consequence*. JPA remains right; the novelty pitch should be the systematization + (see Q3 refinement). +2. **"Fallback Experimental Mathematics."** **Agree**, now grounded in the fetched aims-and-scope page: + "formal results inspired by experimentation", repeatability expectations, and the precedent of BBG + 1994. One refinement: Grok says the boundary-degree criterion is "closer to ExpMath's centre of + gravity" — supported, but the deeper fit is that ExpMath explicitly publishes experiments *without* + complete formal closure, so the manuscript's sensitivity-certified nulls (§6.4) and frozen-contract + method (§5) are themselves genre-expanding there. +3. **"A respectable specialized paper, not CMP/PTRF/Annals; not a transcendence result."** **Agree.** + No fetched source contradicts; the theorems are elementary (Prop. 1, Thm 2 verified in §3 of the + draft), the claim boundary (§1.4, §8) explicitly forswears transcendence, and nothing fetched elevates + the census above specialized. +4. **"Methodological pieces are the durable novelty; the physics-facing news is the pairwise disjoint + intervals."** **Refine.** The methodological pieces (plural targets, cross-interval resolution, + planted-root sensitivity, boundary degree) are durable, and the retrieval found no precedent for any + of them (Q1). But the disjointness is *partially* pre-known: Mertens 2022 states the pairwise + deviations in print, and the Comment/Reply dispute is public. The news is the four-way exact statement + + "no pooled interval is defensible", and the retrieval strengthens the methodological side + accordingly: the transferable toolkit is the part with no literature at all. +5. **"Not to PRE as a physics-mechanism paper; not to pure number-theory journals."** **Agree**, with the + Scullard nuance: PRE publishes exact-threshold *derivations* (Scullard 2006 is PRE), so the objection + to PRE is not "PRE never publishes threshold papers" but "this paper contains no mechanism or + derivation, which is what PRE threshold papers have". J. Algebra: no analogue found; wrong. + +--- + +## Source log (everything fetched this session) + +| # | Source | URL | Status | +|---|---|---|---| +| 1 | Jacobsen 2015, JPA 48 454003 | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8113/48/45/454003 | PRIMARY_TEXT_READ (abstract page) | +| 2 | Mertens 2022, JPA 55 334002 (IOP page) | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ac4195 | ABSTRACT_ONLY (page) | +| 3 | Mertens 2022 (arXiv 2109.12102 full text) | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.12102 | PRIMARY_TEXT_READ | +| 4 | Yang–Zhou 2024 Comment, JPA 57 258001 | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d2c | ABSTRACT_ONLY | +| 5 | Jacobsen 2024 Reply, JPA 57 258002 | https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d33 | ABSTRACT_ONLY (page + Semantic Scholar record) | +| 6 | J. Phys. A about/scope page | https://publishingsupport.iopscience.iop.org/journals/journal-of-physics-a-mathematical-and-theoretical/about-journal-physics-mathematical-theoretical/ | PRIMARY (publisher page) | +| 7 | Scullard 2006, PRE 73 016107 | https://harvest.aps.org/v2/journals/articles/10.1103/PhysRevE.73.016107/fulltext | PRIMARY_TEXT_READ | +| 8 | Bailey–Borwein–Girgensohn 1994, Exp. Math. 3(1) 17–30 | https://www.davidhbailey.com/dhbpapers/eulsum-em.pdf | PRIMARY_TEXT_READ (author copy) | +| 9 | Bailey–Broadhurst 2001, Math. Comp. 70 1719–1736 | https://www.davidhbailey.com/dhbpapers/ppslq.pdf | PRIMARY_TEXT_READ (author copy) | +| 10 | Experimental Mathematics aims & scope | https://amstat.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=uexm20 | ABSTRACT_ONLY (publisher page) | +| 11 | Wikipedia, Percolation threshold (compilation practice) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_threshold | [SECONDARY] | +| 12 | Orrick–Nickel–Guttmann–Perk 2001, J. Stat. Phys. 102 1113 | not fetched (Springer/OpenAlex/S2 attempts blocked or rate-limited) | [LIT] | + +Blocked/not-fetched notes: `iopscience.iop.org/journal/1751-8121/about` 404s (scope obtained from the +publisher support page instead, #6); `link.springer.com` blocked the Orrick fetch (IP block); +Semantic Scholar/OpenAlex search endpoints rate-limited during the Orrick query. Nothing else was +blocked; no NEED_HUAWEI was required. + +**Bottom line.** The tripwire is met: one fetched publisher scope page (#6, plus #10), and four fetched +comparable papers with title/year/venue/content (#7, #8, #9, and #3 as the in-field algorithmic +analogue). The draft's target-venue decision (JPA primary, Exp. Math. fallback) is **confirmed +independently**, with one substantive refinement: §2.1's disjointness finding should be positioned as a +systematization of an in-literature disagreement, not a first observation of it.