MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inference, Model Selection, and the Combinatorics of Growing Trees

2021· article· en· W3124251198 on OpenAlexafffund
George T. Cantwell, Guillaume St-Onge, Jean-Gabriel Young

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsInferenceComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Model selectionInterpolation (computer graphics)Series (stratigraphy)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One can often make inferences about a growing network from its current state alone. For example, it is generally possible to determine how a network changed over time or pick among plausible mechanisms explaining its growth. In practice, however, the extent to which such problems can be solved is limited by existing techniques, which are often inexact, inefficient, or both. In this Letter, we derive exact and efficient inference methods for growing trees and demonstrate them in a series of applications: network interpolation, history reconstruction, model fitting, and model selection.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207