MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132768574 · doi:10.1214/10-aap687

VRRW on complete-like graphs: Almost sure behavior

2010· article· en· W2132768574 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Probability · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Science Foundation
KeywordsMartingale (probability theory)GraphRandom graphStochastic block modelProbability measureEvent (particle physics)Convergence of random variablesRandom walk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By a theorem of Volkov [12] we know that on most graphs with positive probability the linearly vertex-reinforced random walk (VRRW) stays within a finite “trapping” subgraph at all large times. The question of whether this tail behavior occurs with probability one is open in general. In his thesis, Pemantle [5] proved, via a dynamical system approach, that for a VRRW on any complete graph the asymptotic frequency of visits is uniform over vertices. These techniques do not easily extend even to the setting of complete-like graphs, that is, complete graphs ornamented with finitely many leaves at each vertex. In this work we combine martingale and large deviation techniques to prove that almost surely the VRRW on any such graph spends positive (and equal) proportions of time on each of its nonleaf vertices. This behavior was previously shown to occur only up to event of positive probability (cf. Volkov [12]). We believe that our approach can be used as a building block in studying related questions on more general graphs. The same set of techniques is used to obtain explicit bounds on the speed of convergence of the empirical occupation measure.

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)0.024
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied ProbabilitySame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207