MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783809158 · doi:10.1214/20-ejp522

Exchangeable hierarchies and mass-structure of weighted real trees

2020· article· en· W2783809158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Journal of Probability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsRandom binary treeMetric spaceDiscrete mathematicsPartition (number theory)Equivalence (formal languages)Tree (set theory)Binary tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rooted, weighted continuum random trees are used to describe limits of sequences of random discrete trees. Formally, they are random quadruples $(\mathcal {T},d,r,p)$, where $(\mathcal {T},d)$ is a tree-like metric space, $r\in \mathcal {T}$ is a distinguished root, and $p$ is a probability measure on this space. Intuitively, these trees have a combinatorial “underlying branching structure” implied by their topology but otherwise independent of the metric $d$. We explore various ways of making this rigorous, using the weight $p$ to do so without losing the fractal complexity possible in continuum trees. We introduce a notion of mass-structural equivalence and show that two rooted, weighted $\mathbb {R}$-trees are equivalent in this sense if and only if the discrete hierarchies derived by i.i.d. sampling from their weights, in a manner analogous to Kingman’s paintbox, have the same distribution. We introduce a family of trees, called “interval partition trees” that serve as representatives of mass-structure equivalence classes, and which naturally represent the laws of the aforementioned hierarchies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · 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