Random walks and evolving sets: faster convergences and limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyzing the mixing time of random walks is a well-studied problem with applications in random sampling and more recently in graph partitioning. In this work, we present new analysis of random walks and evolving sets using more combinatorial graph structures, and show some implications in approximating small-set expansion. On the other hand, we provide examples showing the limitations of using random walks and evolving sets in disproving the small-set expansion hypothesis.1. We define a combinatorial analog of the spectral gap, and use it to prove the convergence of non-lazy random walks. A corollary is a tight lower bound on the small-set expansion of graph powers for any graph.2. We prove that random walks converge faster when the robust vertex expansion of the graph is larger. This provides an improved analysis of the local graph partitioning algorithm using the evolving set process, and also derives an alternative proof of an improved Cheeger's inequality.3. We give an example showing that the evolving set process fails to disprove the small-set expansion hypothesis. This refutes a conjecture of Oveis Gharan and shows the limitations of all existing local graph partitioning algorithms in approximating small-set expansion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".