Agglomerative percolation on bipartite networks: Nonuniversal behavior due to spontaneous symmetry breaking at the percolation threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ordinary bond percolation (OP) can be viewed as a process where clusters grow by joining them pairwise, adding links chosen randomly one by one from a set of predefined virtual links. In contrast, in agglomerative percolation (AP) clusters grow by choosing randomly a target cluster and joining it with all its neighbors, as defined by the same set of virtual links. Previous studies showed that AP is in different universality classes from OP for several types of (virtual) networks (linear chains, trees, Erdös-Rényi networks), but most surprising were the results for two-dimensional (2D) lattices: While AP on the triangular lattice was found to be in the OP universality class, it behaved completely differently on the square lattice. In the present paper we explain this striking violation of universality by invoking bipartivity. While the square lattice is a bipartite graph, the triangular lattice is not. In conformity with this we show that AP on the honeycomb and simple cubic (3D) lattices--both of which are bipartite--are also not in the OP universality classes. More precisely, we claim that this violation of universality is basically due to a Z(2) symmetry that is spontaneously broken at the percolation threshold. We also discuss AP on bipartite random networks and suitable generalizations of AP on k-partite graphs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".