MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006001667 · doi:10.1002/rsa.20438

Tail bounds for the height and width of a random tree with a given degree sequence

2012· article· en· W2006001667 on OpenAlexaff
Louigi Addario‐Berry

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsExponentMathematicsTree (set theory)Sequence (biology)Degree (music)Order (exchange)Plane (geometry)PhysicsGeometryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fix a sequence c = (c1,…,cn) of non‐negative integers with sum n − 1. We say a rooted tree T has child sequence c if it is possible to order the nodes of T as v1,…,vn so that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, vi has exactly ci children. Let \documentclass{article}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{amsmath}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}${\mathcal T}$\end{document} be a plane tree drawn uniformly at random from among all plane trees with child sequence c. In this note we prove sub‐Gaussian tail bounds on the height (greatest depth of any node) and width (greatest number of nodes at any single depth) of \documentclass{article}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{amsmath}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}${\mathcal T}$\end{document} . These bounds are optimal up to the constant in the exponent when c satisfies \documentclass{article}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{amsmath}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}$\sum_{i=1}^n c_i^2=O(n)$\end{document} ; the latter can be viewed as a “finite variance” condition for the child sequence. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 2012

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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