MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1505868393 · doi:10.1103/physreve.88.062801

Network growth with arbitrary initial conditions: Degree dynamics for uniform and preferential attachment

2013· article· en· W1505868393 on OpenAlexafffund
Babak Fotouhi, Michael Rabbat

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPreferential attachmentDegree distributionDegree (music)MathematicsGraphRendering (computer graphics)InfinityComplete graphTopology (electrical circuits)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsComputer scienceComplex networkMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides time-dependent expressions for the expected degree distribution of a given network that is subject to growth. We consider both uniform attachment, where incoming nodes form links to existing nodes selected uniformly at random, and preferential attachment, where probabilities are assigned proportional to the degrees of the existing nodes. We consider the cases of single and multiple links being formed by each newly introduced node. The initial conditions are arbitrary, that is, the solution depends on the degree distribution of the initial graph which is the substrate of the growth. Previous work in the literature focuses on the asymptotic state, that is, when the number of nodes added to the initial graph tends to infinity, rendering the effect of the initial graph negligible. Our contribution provides a solution for the expected degree distribution as a function of time, for arbitrary initial condition. Previous results match our results in the asymptotic limit. The results are discrete in the degree domain and continuous in the time domain, where the addition of new nodes to the graph are approximated by a continuous arrival rate.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207