MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Percolation Transitions Are Not Always Sharpened by Making Networks Interdependent

2011· article· en· W1551299591 on OpenAlexaff
Seung‐Woo Son, Peter Grassberger, Maya Paczuski

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercolation (cognitive psychology)Statistical physicsPercolation thresholdInterdependent networksDiscontinuity (linguistics)Critical exponentExponentPercolation critical exponentsDimension (graph theory)Percolation theoryDirected percolationPhysicsComplex networkComputer sciencePhase transitionTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsCombinatoricsCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a model for coupled networks introduced recently by Buldyrev et al., [Nature (London) 464, 1025 (2010)], where each node has to be connected to others via two types of links to be viable. Removing a critical fraction of nodes leads to a percolation transition that has been claimed to be more abrupt than that for uncoupled networks. Indeed, it was found to be discontinuous in all cases studied. Using an efficient new algorithm we verify that the transition is discontinuous for coupled Erdös-Rényi networks, but find it to be continuous for fully interdependent diluted lattices. In 2 and 3 dimensions, the order parameter exponent β is larger than in ordinary percolation, showing that the transition is less sharp, i.e., further from discontinuity, than for isolated networks. Possible consequences for spatially embedded networks are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations101
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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