Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Evaluations of graph reconstruction by language models typically report a single aggregate distance between the original and the reconstructed graph. We prove that for the Wasserstein distance between Laplacian spectra such a summary is bracketed by two edge counts, the net change in edge number from below and the symmetric difference from above, each scaled by $2/n$ where $n$ is the number of vertices. The bracket is sharp: its two ends coincide exactly when the reconstruction only adds edges or only deletes them, and on that class the distance is a rescaled edge count that says nothing about which edges changed. When the ends differ, the residual between the distance and the lower end is positive only if the reconstruction both invented and lost edges, which turns it into a certificate of mixed editing computable from the reported summaries alone. We characterize these regimes in 135 reconstructions produced by three open-weight models over 45 synthetic graphs. Seventy-seven outputs are one-sided and 29 mixed outputs have $X > 0$, including cases where edge count is exactly preserved while nineteen edges were simultaneously invented and lost. The three models differ in editing policy, ranging from copying the input to attempting completion at the cost of large hallucination volume, a distinction that aggregate distortion does not reveal.