Improved bounds for randomly sampling colorings via linear programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A well-known conjecture in computer science and statistical physics is that Glauber dynamics on the set of k-colorings of a graph G on n vertices with maximum degree Δ is rapidly mixing for k ≥ Δ + 2. In FOCS 1999, Vigoda [43] showed that the flip dynamics (and therefore also Glauber dynamics) is rapidly mixing for any [MATH HERE]. It turns out that there is a natural barrier at [MATH HERE], below which there is no one-step coupling that is contractive with respect to the Hamming metric, even for the flip dynamics. We use linear programming and duality arguments to fully characterize the obstructions to going beyond [MATH HERE]. These extremal configurations turn out to be quite brittle, and in this paper we use this to give two proofs that the Glauber dynamics is rapidly mixing for any [MATH HERE] for some absolute constant ϵe0 > 0. This is the first improvement to Vigoda's result that holds for general graphs. Our first approach analyzes a variable-length coupling in which these configurations break apart with high probability before the coupling terminates, and our other approach analyzes a one-step path coupling with a new metric that counts the extremal configurations. Additionally, our results extend to list coloring, a widely studied generalization of coloring, where the previously best known results required k > 2Δ.
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 | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".