MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1866560977 · doi:10.5555/2884435.2884542

Connectivity in bridge-addable graph classes: the mcdiarmid-steger-welsh conjecture

2016· article· en· W1866560977 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Chapuy, Guillem Perarnau

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on Discrete Algorithms · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConjectureMathematicsRandom graphCombinatorics1-planar graphBounded functionDiscrete mathematicsPlanar graphRandomnessClass (philosophy)GraphChordal graphComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of typical properties of random graphs is of particular importance for the theoretical analysis of complex networks. In this field, many models of randomness (such as Erdoos-Renyi or random planar graphs, preferential attachment models) have been successfully analysed thanks to the fact that their underlying structure enables one to perform explicit computations of some observables. Another approach, pioneered by McDiarmid, Steger and Welsh (2005) is to consider graphs taken uniformly from an abstract graph class, assuming only some global property of the class but without fully specifying it. Despite the fact that exact computations are no longer possible, results obtained in this setup are arguably very robust, since they apply universally for many different models of random graphs.The foundational and most studied problem in this topic is a conjecture of these authors on bridge-addable classes that we prove in this paper. A class of graphs is bridge-addable if any graph obtained by adding an edge between two connected components of a graph in the class, is also in the class. Examples of bridge-addable classes include forests, planar graphs, graphs with bounded tree-width, or graphs excluding any 2-connected minor. We prove that a random graph from a bridge-addable class is connected with probability at least e-1/2 +o(1), when its number of vertices tends to infinity.This lower bound is tight since it is reached for forests. The best previously known constants where e-1, e-0.7983 and e-2/3 proved respectively by McDiarmid, Steger and Welsh, by Balister, Bollobas and Gerke, and by Norin.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on Discrete AlgorithmsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207