MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000656034 · doi:10.37236/8251

Uniform Generation of Spanning Regular Subgraphs of a Dense Graph

2019· article· en· W3000656034 on OpenAlexafffund
Pu Gao, Catherine Greenhill

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsDegree (music)GraphDiscrete mathematicsDistribution (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $H_n$ be a graph on $n$ vertices and let $\overline{H_n}$ denote the complement of $H_n$. Suppose that $\Delta = \Delta(n)$ is the maximum degree of $\overline{H_n}$. We analyse three algorithms for sampling $d$-regular subgraphs ($d$-factors) of $H_n$. This is equivalent to uniformly sampling $d$-regular graphs which avoid a set $E(\overline{H_n})$ of forbidden edges. Here $d=d(n)$ is a positive integer which may depend on $n$.
 Two of these algorithms produce a uniformly random $d$-factor of $H_n$ in expected runtime which is linear in $n$ and low-degree polynomial in $d$ and $\Delta$. The first algorithm applies when $(d+\Delta)d\Delta = o(n)$. This improves on an earlier algorithm by the first author, which required constant $d$ and at most a linear number of edges in $\overline{H_n}$. The second algorithm applies when $H_n$ is regular and $d^2+\Delta^2 = o(n)$, adapting an approach developed by the first author together with Wormald. The third algorithm is a simplification of the second, and produces an approximately uniform $d$-factor of $H_n$ in time $O(dn)$. Here the output distribution differs from uniform by $o(1)$ in total variation distance, provided that $d^2+\Delta^2 = o(n)$.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicLimits and Structures in Graph TheoryFrench-language works237,207