Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a weighted model of random trees and analyze the asymptotic properties of their heights. Our framework encompasses most trees of logarithmic height that were introduced in the context of the analysis of algorithms or combinatorics. This allows us to state a sort of "master theorem" for the height of random trees, that covers binary search trees (Devroye, 1986), random recursive trees (Devroye, 1987; Pittel, 1994), digital search trees (Pittel, 1985), scale-free trees (Pittel, 1994; Barabasi and Albert, 1999), and all polynomial families of increasing trees (Bergeron et al., 1992; Broutin et al., 2006) among others. Other applications include the shape of skinny cells in geometric structures like k-d and relaxed k-d trees. This new approach sheds new light on the tight relationship between data structures like trees and tries that used to be studied separately. In particular, we show that digital search trees and the tries built from sequences generated by the same memoryless source share the same stable core. This link between digital search trees and tries is at the heart of our analysis of heights of tries. It permits us to derive the height of several species of tries such as the trees introduced by de la Briandais (1959) and the ternary search trees of Bentley and Sedgewick (1997). The proofs are based on the theory of large deviations. The first order terms of the asymptotic expansions of the heights are geometrically characterized using the Crame'r functions appearing in estimates of the tail probabilities for sums of independent random variables.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".