Uniform Generation of Spanning Regular Subgraphs of a Dense Graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".