arXiv Roundup

1. The Quantum Nose

arxiv:physics/0611205:

Our sense of smell relies on sensitive, selective atomic-scale processes that are initiated when a scent molecule meets specific receptors in the nose. However, the physical mechanisms of detection are not clear. While odorant shape and size are important, experiment indicates these are insufficient. One novel proposal suggests inelastic electron tunneling from a donor to an acceptor mediated by the odorant actuates a receptor, and provides critical discrimination. We test the physical viability of this mechanism using a simple but general model. Using values of key parameters in line with those for other biomolecular systems, we find the proposed mechanism is consistent both with the underlying physics and with observed features of smell, provided the receptor has certain general properties. This mechanism suggests a distinct paradigm for selective molecular interactions at receptors (the swipe card model): recognition and actuation involve size and shape, but also exploit other processes.

2. An Introduction to the Theory of Citing

From arxiv:math.ST/0701086 – M.V. Simkin and V.P. Roychowdhury, Significance, 3, 179-181 (2006):

Statistical analysis of repeat misprints in scientific citations leads to the conclusion that about 80% of scientific citations are copied from the lists of references used in othe papers. Based on this finding a mathematical theory of citing is constructed. It leads to the conclusion that a large number of citations does not have to be a result of paper’s extraordinary qualities, but can be explained by the ordinary law of chances.

By applying statistics to misprints in scientific citations (similar to how Freud applied psychoanalysis to slips in speech/writing – what we call Freudian slips), the authors find that:

…a lot of misprints are identical. The probability of repeating someone else’s misprint accidentally is small. One concludes that repeat misprints are most likely due to copying from a reference list used in another paper.

While this is interesting, I don’t feel that this conclusion in itself is anything new or non-obvious. What I find more interesting is the second part of the paper, in which the authors compare a random-citing model (or as they call it, the model of random-citing scientists) to real citation data. The correlation is remarkable: