MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2503583255 · doi:10.1002/net.21697

On the roots of the node reliability polynomial

2016· article· en· W2503583255 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNode (physics)Robustness (evolution)Reliability (semiconductor)MathematicsGraphPolynomialDiscrete mathematicsTime complexityComputer scienceCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a graph G whose edges are perfectly reliable and whose nodes each operate independently with probability the node reliability of G is the probability that at least one node is operational and that the operational nodes can all communicate in the subgraph that they induce; it is the analogous node measure of robustness to the well studied all‐terminal reliability , where the nodes are perfectly reliable but the edges fail randomly. In sharp contrast to what is known about the roots of the all‐terminal reliability polynomial, we show that the node reliability polynomial of any connected graph on at least three nodes has a nonreal polynomial root, the collection of real roots of all node reliability polynomials is unbounded, and the collection of complex roots of all node reliability polynomials is dense in the entire complex plane. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. NETWORKS, Vol. 68(3), 238–246 2016

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
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