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

Finding Adam in random growing trees

2016· preprint· en· W1702956999 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Bubeck, Luc Devroye, Gábor Lugosi

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.

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)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.035
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRandom Structures and AlgorithmsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207