Tuning the Clustering Coefficient of Generalized Circulant Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apart from the role the clustering coefficient plays in the definition of the small-world phenomena, it also has great relevance for practical problems involving networked dynamical systems. To study the impact of the clustering coefficient on dynamical processes taking place on networks, some authors have focused on the construction of graphs with tunable clustering coefficients. These constructions are usually realized through a stochastic process, either by growing a network through the preferential attachment procedure, or by applying a random rewiring process. In contrast, we consider here several families of static graphs whose clustering coefficients can be determined explicitly. The basis for these families is formed by the $k$-regular graphs on $N$ nodes, that belong to the family of so-called circulant graphs denoted by $C_{N,k}$. We show that the expression for the clustering coefficient of $C_{N,k}$ reported in literature, only holds for sufficiently large $N$. Next, we consider three generalizations of the circulant graphs, either by adding some pendant links to $C_{N,k}$, or by connecting, in two different ways, an additional node to some nodes of $C_{N,k}$. For all three generalizations, we derive explicit expressions for the clustering coefficient. Finally, we construct a family of pairs of generalized circulant graphs, with the same number of nodes and links, but with different clustering coefficients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".