MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982313773 · doi:10.1239/aap/1427814580

The Mixing Time of the Newman-Watts Small-World Model

2015· article· en· W1982313773 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Applied Probability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMixing (physics)Upper and lower boundsRandom walkCombinatoricsLogarithmSmall-world networkRandom graphOrder (exchange)Binary logarithmGraphDiscrete mathematicsStatistical physicsMathematical analysisComplex networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Small worlds’ are large systems in which any given node has only a few connections to other points, but possessing the property that all pairs of points are connected by a short path, typically logarithmic in the number of nodes. The use of random walks for sampling a uniform element from a large state space is by now a classical technique; to prove that such a technique works for a given network, a bound on the mixing time is required. However, little detailed information is known about the behaviour of random walks on small-world networks, though many predictions can be found in the physics literature. The principal contribution of this paper is to show that for a famous small-world random graph model known as the Newman-Watts small-world model, the mixing time is of order log 2 n . This confirms a prediction of Richard Durrett [5, page 22], who proved a lower bound of order log 2 n and an upper bound of order log 3 n .

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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