Beta-coalescents and continuous stable random trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coalescents with multiple collisions, also known as Λ-coalescents, were introduced by Pitman and Sagitov in 1999. These processes describe the evolution of particles that undergo stochastic coagulation in such a way that several blocks can merge at the same time to form a single block. In the case that the measure Λ is the Beta (2−α, α) distribution, they are also known to describe the genealogies of large populations where a single individual can produce a large number of offspring. Here, we use a recent result of Birkner et al. to prove that Beta-coalescents can be embedded in continuous stable random trees, about which much is known due to the recent progress of Duquesne and Le Gall. Our proof is based on a construction of the Donnelly–Kurtz lookdown process using continuous random trees, which is of independent interest. This produces a number of results concerning the small-time behavior of Beta-coalescents. Most notably, we recover an almost sure limit theorem of the present authors for the number of blocks at small times and give the multifractal spectrum corresponding to the emergence of blocks with atypical size. Also, we are able to find exact asymptotics for sampling formulae corresponding to the site frequency spectrum and the allele frequency spectrum associated with mutations in the context of population genetics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".