Limits of Ordered Graphs and their Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging theory of graph limits exhibits an analytic perspective on graphs, showing that many important concepts and tools in graph theory and its applications can be described more naturally (and sometimes proved more easily) in analytic language. We extend the theory of graph limits to the ordered setting, presenting a limit object for dense vertex-ordered graphs, which we call an \emph{orderon}. As a special case, this yields limit objects for matrices whose rows and columns are ordered, and for dynamic graphs that expand (via vertex insertions) over time. Along the way, we devise an ordered locality-preserving variant of the cut distance between ordered graphs, showing that two graphs are close with respect to this distance if and only if they are similar in terms of their ordered subgraph frequencies. We show that the space of orderons is compact with respect to this distance notion, which is key to a successful analysis of combinatorial objects through their limits. We derive several applications of the ordered limit theory in extremal combinatorics, sampling, and property testing in ordered graphs. In particular, we prove a new ordered analogue of the well-known result by Alon and Stav [RS\A this is the first known result of this type in the ordered setting. Unlike the unordered regime, here the random graph model $G(n, p)$ with an ordering over the vertices is \emph{not} always asymptotically the furthest from the property for some $p$. However, using our ordered limit theory, we show that random graphs generated by a stochastic block model, where the blocks are consecutive in the vertex ordering, are (approximately) the furthest. Additionally, we describe an alternative analytic proof of the ordered graph removal lemma [Alon et al., FOCS'17].
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".