MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082642148 · doi:10.37236/9239

Counting Triangles in Power-Law Uniform Random Graphs

2020· article· en· W3082642148 on OpenAlexaff
Pu Gao, Remco van der Hofstad, Angus Southwell, Clara Stegehuis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekAustralian Government
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsRandom graphVertex (graph theory)ExponentDegree distributionDegree (music)Clustering coefficientDiscrete mathematicsRandom regular graphGraphChordal graphCluster analysis1-planar graphComplex networkStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We count the asymptotic number of triangles in uniform random graphs where the degree distribution follows a power law with degree exponent $\tau\in(2,3)$. We also analyze the local clustering coefficient $c(k)$, the probability that two random neighbors of a vertex of degree $k$ are connected. We find that the number of triangles, as well as the local clustering coefficient, scale similarly as in the erased configuration model, where all self-loops and multiple edges of the configuration model are removed. Interestingly, uniform random graphs contain more triangles than erased configuration models with the same degree sequence. The number of triangles in uniform random graphs is closely related to that in a version of the rank-1 inhomogeneous random graph, where all vertices are equipped with weights, and the probabilities that edges are present are moderated by asymptotically linear functions of the products of these vertex weights.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207