Quantifying synergy and redundancy between networks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how different networks relate to each other is key for understanding complex systems. We introduce an intuitive yet powerful framework to disentangle different ways in which networks can be (dis)similar and complementary to each other. We decompose the shortest paths between nodes as uniquely contributed by one source network, or redundantly by either, or synergistically by both together. Our approach considers the networks' full topology, providing insights at multiple levels of resolution: from global statistics to individual paths. Our framework is widely applicable across scientific domains, from public transport to brain networks. In humans and 124 other species, we demonstrate the prevalence of unique contributions by long-range white-matter fibers in structural brain networks. Across species, efficient communication also relies on significantly greater synergy between long-range and short-range fibers than expected by chance. Our framework could find applications for designing network systems or evaluating existing ones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it