MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1814614163 · doi:10.1214/aop/1048516530

Second phase changes in random $\boldsymbol{m}$-ary search trees and generalized quicksort: Convergence rates

2003· article· en· W1814614163 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hsien‐Kuei Hwang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Probability · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsQuicksortMathematicsCombinatoricsLimit (mathematics)Rate of convergenceRandom variableCentral limit theoremConvergence of random variablesLaw of large numbersConvergence (economics)ReciprocalApplied mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysisAlgorithmSortingSorting algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the convergence rate to normal limit law for the space requirement of random $m$-ary search trees. While it is known that the random variable is asymptotically normally distributed for $3\le m\le 26$ and that the limit law does not exist for $m>26$, we show that the convergence rate is $O(n^{-1/2})$ for $3\le m\le 19$ and is $O(n^{-3(3/2-\alpha)})$, where $4/3<\alpha<3/2$ is a parameter depending on $m$ for $20\le m\le 26$. Our approach is based on a refinement to the method of moments and applicable to other recursive random variables; we briefly mention the applications to quicksort proper and the generalized quicksort of Hennequin, where more phase changes are given. These results provide natural, concrete examples for which the Berry--Esseen bounds are not necessarily proportional to the reciprocal of the standard deviation. Local limit theorems are also derived.

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)0.036
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of ProbabilitySame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207