MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808421189

Random subgraphs of finite graphs. Part II: The lace expansion and the triangle condition

2003· article· en· W2808421189 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christian Borgs, Jennifer Chayes, Remco van der Hofstad, Gordon Slade, J. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueTU/e Research Portal (Eindhoven University of Technology) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTechnische Universiteit DelftMicrosoft Research
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsDiscrete mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous paper, we defined a version of the percolation triangle condition that is suitable for the analysis of bond percolation on a finite connected transitive graph, and showed that this triangle condition implies that the percolation phase transition has many features in common with the phase transition on the complete graph.In this paper, we use a new and simplified approach to the lace expansion to prove quite generally that for finite graphs that are tori the triangle condition for percolation is implied by a certain triangle condition for simple random walks on the graph.The latter is readily verified for several graphs with vertex set {0, 1, . . ., r -1} n , including the n-cube, the n-dimensional torus with nearest-neighbor bonds with n large and fixed, and the n-dimensional torus with spread-out (long range) bonds with n > 6 fixed.The conclusions of our previous paper thus apply to the percolation phase transition for each of the above examples.

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)0.010
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTU/e Research Portal (Eindhoven University of Technology)Same topicLimits and Structures in Graph TheoryFrench-language works237,207