Static Network Reliability Estimation under the Marshall-Olkin Copula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a static network reliability model, one typically assumes that the failures of the components of the network are independent. This simplifying assumption makes it possible to estimate the network reliability efficiently via specialized Monte Carlo algorithms. Hence, a natural question to consider is whether this independence assumption can be relaxed while still attaining an elegant and tractable model that permits an efficient Monte Carlo algorithm for unreliability estimation. In this article, we provide one possible answer by considering a static network reliability model with dependent link failures, based on a Marshall-Olkin copula, which models the dependence via shocks that take down subsets of components at exponential times, and propose a collection of adapted versions of permutation Monte Carlo (PMC, a conditional Monte Carlo method), its refinement called the turnip method , and generalized splitting (GS) methods to estimate very small unreliabilities accurately under this model. The PMC and turnip estimators have bounded relative error when the network topology is fixed while the link failure probabilities converge to 0, whereas GS does not have this property. But when the size of the network (or the number of shocks) increases, PMC and turnip eventually fail, whereas GS works nicely (empirically) for very large networks, with over 5,000 shocks in our examples.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".