Efficient Broadcast on Random Geometric Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Random Geometric Graph (RGG) in two dimensions is constructed by distributing n nodes independently and uniformly at random in [0, √ n] 2 and creating edges between every pair of nodes having Euclidean distance at most r, for some prescribed r. We analyze the following randomized broadcast algorithm on RGGs. At the beginning, only one node from the largest connected component of the RGG is informed. Then, in each round, each informed node chooses a neighbor independently and uniformly at random and informs it. We prove that with probability 1−O(n −1) this algorithm informs every node in the largest connected component of an RGG within O ( √ n/r+logn) rounds. This holds for any value of r larger than the critical value for the emergence of a connected component with Ω(n) nodes. In order to prove this result, we show that for any two nodes sufficiently distant from each other in [0, √ n] 2, the length of the shortest path between them in the RGG, when such a path exists, is only a constant factor larger than the optimum. This result has independent interest and, in particular, gives that the diameter of the largest connected component of an RGG is Θ ( √ n/r), which surprisingly has been an open problem so far. 1
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".