Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a new technique for proving logarithmic upper bounds for diameters of evolving random graph models, which is based on defining a coupling between random graphs and variants of random recursive trees. The advantage of the technique is three‐fold: it is quite simple and provides short proofs, it is applicable to a broad variety of models including those incorporating preferential attachment, and it provides bounds with small constants. We illustrate this by proving, for the first time, logarithmic upper bounds for the diameters of the following well known models: the forest fire model, the copying model, the PageRank‐based selection model, the Aiello‐Chung‐Lu models, the generalized linear preference model, directed scale‐free graphs, the Cooper‐Frieze model, and random unordered increasing k ‐trees. Our results shed light on why the small‐world phenomenon is observed in so many real‐world graphs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 50, 201–224, 2017
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".