Characteristic scales and adaptation in higher-order contagions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People organize in groups and contagions spread across them. A simple stochastic process, yet complex to model due to dynamical correlations within and between groups. Moreover, groups can evolve if agents join or leave in response to contagions. To address the lack of analytical models that account for dynamical correlations and adaptation in groups, we introduce the method of generalized approximate master equations. We first analyze how nonlinear contagions differ when driven by group-level or individual-level dynamics. We then study the characteristic levels of group activity that best describe the stochastic process and that optimize agents’ ability to adapt to it. Naturally lending itself to study adaptive hypergraphs, our method reveals how group structure unlocks new dynamical regimes and enables distinct suitable adaptation strategies. Our approach offers a highly accurate model of binary-state dynamics on hypergraphs, advances our understanding of contagion processes, and opens the study of adaptive group-structured systems. People organize in groups and contagions spread across them, meanwhile groups can evolve as people adaptively move in response to the spread. Here, authors show how keeping key dynamical correlations offers new insights on contagion processes and opens the study of adaptive group-structured systems.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".