Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of finding birth–death fixation probabilities for configurations of normal and mutants on an N -vertex graph is formulated in terms of a Markov process on the 2 N -dimensional state space of possible configurations. Upper and lower bounds on the fixation probability after any given number of iterations of the birth–death process are derived in terms of the transition matrix of this process. Consideration is then specialized to a family of graphs called circular flows, and we present a summation formula for the complete bipartite graph, giving the fixation probability for an arbitrary configuration of mutants in terms of a weighted sum of the single-vertex fixation probabilities. This also yields a closed-form solution for the fixation probability of bipartite graphs. Three entropy measures are introduced, providing information about graph structure. Finally, a number of examples are presented, illustrating cases of graphs that enhance or suppress fixation probability for fitness r >1 as well as graphs that enhance fixation probability for only a limited range of fitness. Results are compared with recent results reported in the literature, where a positive correlation is observed between vertex degree variance and fixation probability for undirected graphs. We show a similar correlation for directed graphs, with correlation not directly to fixation probability but to the difference between fixation probability for a given graph and a complete graph.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".