Avalanches, branching ratios, and clustering of attractors in random Boolean networks and in the segment polarity network of<i>Drosophila</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss basic features of emergent complexity in dynamical systems far from equilibrium by focusing on the network structure of their state space. We start by measuring the distributions of avalanche and transient times in Random Boolean Networks (RBNs) and in the \emph{Drosophila} polarity network by exact enumeration. A transient time is the duration of the transient from a starting state to an attractor. An avalanche is a special transient which starts as single Boolean element perturbation of an attractor state. Significant differences at short times between the avalanche and the transient times for RBNs with small connectivity $K$ -- compared to the number of elements $N$ -- indicate that attractors tend to cluster in configuration space. In addition, one bit flip has a non-negligible chance to put an attractor state directly onto another attractor. This clustering is also present in the segment polarity gene network of \emph{Drosophila melanogaster}, suggesting that this may be a robust feature of biological regulatory networks. We also define and measure a branching ratio for the state space networks and find evidence for a new time scale that diverges roughly linearly with $N$ for $2\leq K \ll N$. Analytic arguments show that this time scale does not appear in the random map nor can the random map exhibit clustering of attractors. We further show that for K=2 the branching ratio exhibits the largest variation with distance from the attractor compared to other values of $K$ and that the avalanche durations exhibit no characteristic scale within our statistical resolution. Hence, we propose that the branching ratio and the avalanche duration are new indicators for scale-free behavior that may or may not be found simultaneously with other indicators of emergent complexity in extended, deterministic dynamical systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".