MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1702956999 · doi:10.1002/rsa.20649

Finding Adam in random growing trees

2016· preprint· en· W1702956999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsPreferential attachmentCombinatoricsVertex (graph theory)MathematicsTree (set theory)Exponential growthSet (abstract data type)Function (biology)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceGraphComplex network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We investigate algorithms to find the first vertex in large trees generated by either the uniform attachment or preferential attachment model. We require the algorithm to output a set of K vertices, such that, with probability at least , the first vertex is in this set. We show that for any ε , there exist such algorithms with K independent of the size of the input tree. Moreover, we provide almost tight bounds for the best value of K as a function of ε . In the uniform attachment case we show that the optimal K is subpolynomial in , and that it has to be at least superpolylogarithmic. On the other hand, the preferential attachment case is exponentially harder, as we prove that the best K is polynomial in . We conclude the paper with several open problems. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 50, 158–172, 2017

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.283 · 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