Subgraph probability of random graphs with specified degrees and applications to chromatic number and connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a graphical degree sequence ${\bf d}=(d_1,\ldots, d_n)$, let $G(n, {\bf d})$ denote a uniformly random graph on vertex set $[n]$ where vertex $ i$ has degree $d_i$ for every $1\le i\le n$. We give upper and lower bounds on the joint probability of an arbitrary set of edges in $G(n,{\bf d})$. These upper and lower bounds are approximately what one would get in the configuration model, and thus the analysis in the configuration model can be translated directly to $G(n,{\bf d})$, without conditioning on that the configuration model produces a simple graph. Many existing results of $G(n,{\bf d})$ in the literature can be significantly improved with simpler proofs, by applying this new probabilistic tool. One example we give is about the chromatic number of $G(n,{\bf d})$. In another application, we use these joint probabilities to study the connectivity of $G(n,{\bf d})$. When $Δ^2=o(M)$ where $Δ$ is the maximum component of ${\bf d}$, we fully characterise the connectivity phase transition of $G(n,{\bf d})$. We also give sufficient conditions for $G(n,{\bf d})$ being connected when $Δ$ is unrestricted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".