MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789066782 · doi:10.4153/s0008414x20000590

Mallows permutations as stable matchings

2020· article· en· W2789066782 on OpenAlexafffund
Omer Angel, Alexander E. Holroyd, Tom Hutchcroft, Avi Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMicrosoft Research
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We show that the Mallows measure on permutations of $1,\dots ,n$ arises as the law of the unique Gale–Shapley stable matching of the random bipartite graph with vertex set conditioned to be perfect, where preferences arise from the natural total ordering of the vertices of each gender but are restricted to the (random) edges of the graph. We extend this correspondence to infinite intervals, for which the situation is more intricate. We prove that almost surely, every stable matching of the random bipartite graph obtained by performing Bernoulli percolation on the complete bipartite graph $K_{{\mathbb Z},{\mathbb Z}}$ falls into one of two classes: a countable family $(\sigma _n)_{n\in {\mathbb Z}}$ of tame stable matchings, in which the length of the longest edge crossing k is $O(\log |k|)$ as $k\to \pm \infty $ , and an uncountable family of wild stable matchings, in which this length is $\exp \Omega (k)$ as $k\to +\infty $ . The tame stable matching $\sigma _n$ has the law of the Mallows permutation of ${\mathbb Z}$ (as constructed by Gnedin and Olshanski) composed with the shift $k\mapsto k+n$ . The permutation $\sigma _{n+1}$ dominates $\sigma _{n}$ pointwise, and the two permutations are related by a shift along a random strictly increasing sequence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207