Random walks which prefer unvisited edges: Exploring high girth even degree expanders in linear time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Let be a connected graph with vertices. A simple random walk on the vertex set of G is a process, which at each step moves from its current vertex position to a neighbouring vertex chosen uniformly at random. We consider a modified walk which, whenever possible, chooses an unvisited edge for the next transition; and makes a simple random walk otherwise. We call such a walk an edge‐process (or E ‐process). The rule used to choose among unvisited edges at any step has no effect on our analysis. One possible method is to choose an unvisited edge uniformly at random, but we impose no such restriction. For the class of connected even degree graphs of constant maximum degree, we bound the vertex cover time of the E ‐process in terms of the edge expansion rate of the graph G , as measured by eigenvalue gap of the transition matrix of a simple random walk on G . A vertex v is ℓ ‐good, if any even degree subgraph containing all edges incident with v contains at least ℓ vertices. A graph G is ℓ ‐good, if every vertex has the ℓ ‐good property. Let G be an even degree ℓ ‐good expander of bounded maximum degree. Any E ‐process on G has vertex cover time urn:x-wiley:10429832:media:rsa20504:rsa20504-math-0004 This is to be compared with the lower bound on the cover time of any connected graph by a weighted random walk. Our result is independent of the rule used to select the order of the unvisited edges, which could, for example, be chosen on‐line by an adversary. As no walk based process can cover an n vertex graph in less than n – 1 steps, the cover time of the E ‐process is of optimal order when . With high probability random r ‐regular graphs, even, have . Thus the vertex cover time of the E ‐process on such graphs is . © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 46, 36–54, 2015
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".