Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Network science — the structure and dynamics of networks — dimension, curvature and Ricci flow, community detection, consensus and synchronization.
14 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-047 v2 | Can a community of individually sound inquirers settle on a belief none of them reasoned their way to, as an organized whole can settle on a course none of its members intends, and which community-level mechanisms set it? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-030, CLAIM-060, CLAIM-192 and QUESTION-049. THEORY-143, THEORY-148, THEORY-146 and THEORY-151 answer it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-116 | What is the time-lagged form of the block criterion, for a collective whose members are weakly coupled at every instant but strongly connected through time-respecting paths of transmission, across generations and through stored artifacts? | CLAIM-157 already says its block test on synchronous dynamics will not see Otto’s notebook, whose coupling “is a write and a later read”, and that a time-lagged version “is not built”. A9 §2 of the exchange of 2026-10-16 met the same gap from the other side: “A collective can be weakly connected synchronically but strongly connected diachronically.” The second time it turns up. An answer is a criterion on temporal networks or lagged dynamics that finds such a collective and still rejects mere common input. | Open |
| QUESTION-117 v6 | Does coupling the construction of meaning to the allocation of interpretive authority produce modes, attractors or transitions that established models of opinion dynamics with evolving influence (reflected appraisal, adaptive networks, persuasion bias) cannot reproduce as economically? | A15 of the exchange of 2026-10-16. The DeGroot–Friedkin model couples opinion formation on each issue to the evolution of social power across issues by reflected appraisal, and may be the closest predecessor of CLAIM-297’s circuit. Adaptive networks (Holme and Newman; Gross and Blasius) and persuasion bias (DeMarzo, Vayanos and Zwiebel) may explain capture more simply. All registered unread: LIT-1146, LIT-1128, LIT-1139, LIT-1134. An answer derives CASE-092, or a reduction of it, inside one of these models, or names the outcome they forbid and it allows. | Open |
| QUESTION-147 | In a second system of near-identical units on a known graph, are the synchronized clusters the symmetry orbits computed in advance, and does each cluster desynchronize in isolation where its own transverse block predicts? | The empirical condition formerly in THEORY-276’s promote_when. On 2026-10-19 THEORY-276 was promoted: that symmetry orbits are flow-invariant synchronization clusters, and that a cluster whose own factor moves nothing else can desynchronize while the others stay synchronized, was checked by a fixed-point-subspace derivation. Whether the stability predictions hold up in a second physical or biological system, as the record’s use of this result as a coupling signature (QUESTION-063) needs, rests on one 11-node experiment. | Open |
| QUESTION-172 | Does a transient change to one regulator, released with the environment held fixed, leave a bacterium’s other genes in a changed expression state for many generations once slow return is excluded? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-178, moved here when THEORY-178 was narrowed to the Boolean model ensemble it was shown in and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). LIT-854 predicts lasting expression changes after a transient single-gene perturbation of E. coli’s regulatory core, but no such perturbation has been done in cells. Filed under the nucleating-argument line because CLAIM-184, the claim that grounds on THEORY-178, reads it as evidence about what a lasting state needs. | Open |
| QUESTION-184 | Do real groups whose members update by averaging reach a settled estimate that moves away from the truth as the largest influence weight grows, as DeGroot’s model predicts? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 036, ADR-047 v2) narrowed and promoted THEORY-321 to the theorem within DeGroot’s model for a strongly connected society. The former promote_when asked for a case outside the model; this question holds it, together with a check of the theorem for societies with several closed groups. | Open |
| QUESTION-187 | Does greedy layered search on the graph HNSW actually builds take expected O(log N) distance computations to a stated recall, under a stated condition on the data such as bounded doubling dimension? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-365, moved here when THEORY-365 was narrowed to what LIT-1098 measured and promoted on 2026-10-19 (ADR-047 v3). The paper derives O(log N) search only for exact Delaunay layers of bounded degree. It measures logarithmic scaling only at d = 8 and saturating ef only at d = 4, and at d = 128 its scaling departs from a logarithm. | Open |
| QUESTION-203 | How does the average degree of the S¹ hidden-metric model flow under geometric coarse-graining when the closure fails between nearby supernodes, and does an exact ν(γ, β, r) confirm or move the phase boundaries γ = 3 and β = 2? | The degree-flow part of the promotion condition formerly on THEORY-190. THEORY-190 was promoted on 2026-10-20 (ADR-047 v2) narrowed to what was proved: the coarse-grained link probability tends to the S¹ form as the supernodes’ separation grows, and exceeds it between nearby supernodes. The source’s flow of ⟨k⟩ as r^ν, and its phase boundaries, rest on the closure holding at every separation and on a power-law approximation. | Open |
| QUESTION-258 | Should a manuscript drawn from the record be chosen as a well-supported connected part of its argument, or as a smallest set of claims that changes what the argument can conclude, and what else must the choice preserve? | The owner’s question at U3 of the exchange of 2026-10-22: “whether manuscript assembly should optimize for a well-supported connected subgraph or for a minimal set of claims that changes the conclusions reachable from the existing graph”. A3 answered that both “fail as general definitions of manuscript value”. The record already says it does not generate manuscripts (CLAIM-178). This question asks what a choice of claims for one should optimize, and how to test that against the record’s own history. | Open |
| QUESTION-273 v2 | With one population of perspectives, do the three ways of giving them influence that the owner proposed (neighbourhoods in a space whose radii others can change, a shared channel into which they emit at rates, and a budget of passes or locations at which each may act on a common representation) produce different collective decision regimes, and how far does each mechanism’s nominal resource predict the counterfactual influence a perspective actually has? | The owner, at U33 of the exchange of 2026-10-24, continued. It is the third appearance of the owner’s own model: on 2026-10-13, U1 was “a population of denoisers, each of which has different reach, salience valuation, translation (motion across canvas) rate, influence strength” and U2 the influence canvas (CLAIM-285, TERM-053). Here three mechanisms are named. A33, A35 and A36 each took influence to be control over opportunities to modify a shared state, and separated nominal access, its use and its counterfactual effect. The owner took up the build from U37. | Open |
| QUESTION-315 | Does industrial selection, industry funding of researchers whose methods already favour its product, produce industry-favourable consensus in real research fields through those researchers’ productivity and their training of newcomers, rather than through funded researchers changing their methods or results, and does an independent funder that discounts industry-funded work counteract it? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-146, moved here when the eleventh status review narrowed THEORY-146 to what Holman and Bruner’s model and figures show and promoted it, as THEORY-285’s moved to QUESTION-303. The model shows the mechanism can work; whether real fields work this way is this question. | Open |
| QUESTION-343 | Does a rerun of Sarkar, Mukherjee and Sato’s released harness, or an independent implementation, reproduce Table 1’s single-path, uniform and holonomy-weighted accuracies on S4 synchronization with outliers within their intervals, including the paired holonomy − uniform gains? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-1158, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. The accuracies are the paper’s, on 1000 instances per cell, and were not rerun; the AUC ceiling, which is arithmetic, was recomputed and needs no rerun. | Open |
| QUESTION-348 | In groups that discuss a sequence of issues under a stable network of relative influence, measured independently of the members’ self-weights, does each member’s influence over outcomes come to order as the network’s eigenvector centralities and concentrate above them, as the DeGroot–Friedkin model proves for its own dynamics? | The second half of THEORY-916’s promotion condition, moved here when the twenty-third status review narrowed that condition to the proofs the title asserts (ADR-065; ADR-047 kind 4). The model proves where reflected appraisal goes; whether groups bear it out is this question, and the authors say its assessment “has just begun”. | Open |
| QUESTION-356 | In a real community whose members’ private opinions are measured independently of what they express, does a small, persistently vocal minority go with a large silent share of the majority, and does that silence, rather than conversion or network geometry alone, account for most of the gap between expressed and private opinion? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-242, moved here when the status review of 2026-10-30 promoted it under ADR-065. Vilone and Polizzi’s result (LIT-939, read in NOTE-810) is simulation only, and they say the model “should also be validated with empirical data”. | Open |