Power of $k$ Choices and Rainbow Spanning Trees in Random Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the Erdős-Rényi random graph process, which is a stochastic process that starts with $n$ vertices and no edges, and at each step adds one new edge chosen uniformly at random from the set of missing edges. Let $\mathcal{G}(n,m)$ be a graph with $m$ edges obtained after $m$ steps of this process. Each edge $e_i$ ($i=1,2,\ldots, m$) of $\mathcal{G}(n,m)$ independently chooses precisely $k \in\mathbb{N}$ colours, uniformly at random, from a given set of $n-1$ colours (one may view $e_i$ as a multi-edge). We stop the process prematurely at time $M$ when the following two events hold: $\mathcal{G}(n,M)$ is connected and every colour occurs at least once ($M={n \choose 2}$ if some colour does not occur before all edges are present; however, this does not happen asymptotically almost surely). The question addressed in this paper is whether $\mathcal{G}(n,M)$ has a rainbow spanning tree (that is, multicoloured tree on $n$ vertices). Clearly, both properties are necessary for the desired tree to exist.In 1994, Frieze and McKay investigated the case $k=1$ and the answer to this question is "yes" (asymptotically almost surely). However, since the sharp threshold for connectivity is $\frac {n}{2} \log n$ and the sharp threshold for seeing all the colours is $\frac{n}{k} \log n$, the case $k=2$ is of special importance as in this case the two processes keep up with one another. In this paper, we show that asymptotically almost surely the answer is "yes" also for $k \ge 2$.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".