Impact of graph energy on a measurement of resilience for tipping points in complex systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Societies depend on various complex and highly interconnected systems, leading to increasing interest in methods for managing the resilience of these complex systems and the risks associated with their disruption or failure. Identifying and localizing tipping points, or phase transitions, in complex systems is essential for predicting system behavior but a difficult challenge when there are many interacting elements. Systems may transition from stable to unstable at critical tipping‐point thresholds and potentially collapse. One of the suggested approaches in literature is to measure a complex system's resilience to collapse by modeling the system as a network, reducing the network behavior to a simpler model, and then measuring the resulting model's stability. In particular, Gao and colleagues introduced a methodology in 2016 that introduces a resilience index to measure precariousness (the distance to tipping points). However, those mathematical reductions can cause information loss from reducing the topological complexity of the system. Herein, the authors introduce a new methodology that more‐accurately predicts the location of tipping points in networked systems and their precariousness with respect to those tipping points by integrating two approaches: (1) a new measurement of a system's topological complexity using graph energy (created based on molecular orbital theory) and; (2) the resilience index method from Gao et al. This new approach is tested in three separate case studies involving ecosystem collapse, supply chain sustainability, and disruptive technology. Results show a shift in tipping‐point locations correlated with graph energy. The authors present an equation that corrects errors introduced as a result of the model reduction, providing a measurement of precariousness that gives insight into how a complex system's topology affects the location of its tipping points.
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".