MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278351347 · doi:10.1109/tac.2015.2444191

On the Smallest Eigenvalue of Grounded Laplacian Matrices

2015· article· en· W2278351347 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Pirani, Shreyas Sundaram

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsCombinatoricsLaplacian matrixLaplace operatorMathematicsUpper and lower boundsRowDiscrete mathematicsGraph theoryAlgebraic connectivityMatrix (chemical analysis)Asymptotically optimal algorithmRandom graphGraphComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of grounded Laplacian matrices (which are obtained by removing certain rows and columns of the Laplacian matrix of a given graph). The gap between our upper and lower bounds depends on the ratio of the smallest and largest components of the eigenvector corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue of the grounded Laplacian. We provide a graph-theoretic bound on this ratio, and subsequently obtain a tight characterization of the smallest eigenvalue for certain classes of graphs. Specifically, for weighted Erdos-Renyi random graphs, we show that when a (sufficiently small) set S of rows and columns is removed from the Laplacian, and the probability p of adding an edge is sufficiently large, the smallest eigenvalue of the grounded Laplacian asymptotically almost surely approaches μw|S|p, where μwis the mean edge weight. We also show that for weighted random d-regular graphs with a single row and column removed, the smallest eigenvalue is Θ(1/n), where n is the number of nodes in the network. Our bounds have applications to the study of the convergence rate in consensus dynamics with stubborn or leader nodes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207