Load balancing and orientability thresholds for random hypergraphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let h>w>0 be two fixed integers. Let H be a random hypergraph whose hyperedges are all of cardinality h. To w-orient a hyperedge, we assign exactly w of its vertices positive signs with respect to the hyperedge, and the rest negative. A (w,k)-orientation of H consists of a w-orientation of all hyperedges of H, such that each vertex receives at most k positive signs from its incident hyperedges. When k is large enough, we determine the threshold of the existence of a (w,k)-orientation of a random hypergraph. The (w,k)-orientation of hypergraphs is strongly related to a general version of the off-line load balancing problem. The graph case, when h=2 and w=1, was solved recently by Cain, Sanders and Wormald and independently by Fernholz and Ramachandran, thereby settling a conjecture made by Karp and Saks. Motivated by a problem of cuckoo hashing, the special hypergraph case with w=k=1, was solved in three separate preprints dating from October 2009, by Frieze and Melsted, by Fountoulakis and Panagiotou, and by Dietzfelbinger, Goerdt, Mitzenmacher, Montanari, Pagh and Rink.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".