MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W113759710

Random mappings with a given number of cyclical points

2010· article· en· W113759710 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennie C. Hansen, Jerzy Jaworski

Bibliographic record

VenueArs Combinatoria · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsRandom permutationPermutation (music)DigraphJoint probability distributionPoisson distributionOrder (exchange)Section (typography)Distribution (mathematics)Dirichlet distributionRandom graphDiscrete mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysisSymmetric group
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we consider a random mapping, Tn, of the finite set {1, 2, ..., n} into itself for which the digraph representation Ĝn is constructed by: (1) selecting a random number, Ln, of cyclic vertices, (2) constructing a uniform random forest of size n with the selected cyclic vertices as roots, and (3) forming ‘cycles’ of trees by applying a random permutation to the selected cyclic vertices. We investigate kn, the size of a ‘typical’ component of Ĝn, and, under the assumption that the random permutation on the cyclical vertices is uniform, we obtain the asymptotic distribution of kn conditioned on Ln = m(n). As an application of our results, we show in Section 3 that provided Ln is of order much larger than √ n, then the joint distribution of the normalized order statistics of the component sizes of Ĝn converges to the Poisson-Dirichlet(1) distribution as n → ∞. Other applications and generalizations are also discussed in Section 3.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArs CombinatoriaSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207