Generalisation of the Hammersley-Clifford theorem on bipartite graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hammersley-Clifford theorem states that if the support of a Markov random field has a safe symbol, then it is a Gibbs state with some nearest neighbour interaction. In this paper we generalise the theorem with an added condition that the underlying graph is bipartite. Taking inspiration from Brightwell and Winkler (J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 78 (2000), 141–166) we introduce a notion of folding for configuration spaces called strong config-folding proving that if all Markov random fields supported on <inline-formula content-type="math/mathml"> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="upper X"> <mml:semantics> <mml:mi>X</mml:mi> <mml:annotation encoding="application/x-tex">X</mml:annotation> </mml:semantics> </mml:math> </inline-formula> are Gibbs with some nearest neighbour interaction, then so are Markov random fields supported on the ‘strong config-folds’ and ‘strong config-unfolds’ of <inline-formula content-type="math/mathml"> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" alttext="upper X"> <mml:semantics> <mml:mi>X</mml:mi> <mml:annotation encoding="application/x-tex">X</mml:annotation> </mml:semantics> </mml:math> </inline-formula> .
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".