MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W100995880 · doi:10.1002/jgt.20611

Random graphons and a weak Positivstellensatz for graphs

2011· article· en· W100995880 on OpenAlexaff
László Lovász, Balázs Szegedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsMultiplicative functionRandom graphCountable setGraphErgodic theoryPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In an earlier article, the authors proved that limits of convergent graph sequences can be described by various structures, including certain 2‐variable real functions called graphons, random graph models satisfying certain consistency conditions, and normalized, multiplicative and reflection positive graph parameters. In this article we show that each of these structures has a related, relaxed version, which are also equivalent. Using this, we describe a further structure equivalent to graph limits, namely probability measures on countable graphs that are ergodic with respect to the group of permutations of the nodes. As an application, we prove an analogue of the Positivstellensatz for graphs: we show that every linear inequality between subgraph densities that holds asymptotically for all graphs has a formal proof in the following sense: it can be approximated arbitrarily well by another valid inequality that is a “sum of squares” in the algebra of partially labeled graphs. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Graph Theory

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicLimits and Structures in Graph TheoryFrench-language works237,207