MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083134037 · doi:10.1002/rsa.20391

Depth Properties of scaled attachment random recursive trees

2011· article· en· W3083134037 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsRandom walkBinary logarithmTree (set theory)Random variableRandom graphSequence (biology)Preferential attachmentRandom binary treeRandom treeDiscrete mathematicsBinary treeStatisticsGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study depth properties of a general class of random recursive trees where each node i attaches to the random node \documentclass{article} \usepackage{mathrsfs, amsmath, amssymb}\pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \begin{align*}\left\lfloor iX_i\right\rfloor\end{align*} \end{document} and X 0 ,…, X n is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables taking values in [0,1). We call such trees scaled attachment random recursive trees (sarrt). We prove that the typical depth D n , the maximum depth (or height) H n and the minimum depth M n of a sarrt are asymptotically given by D n ∼μ ‐1 log n , H n ∼ α max log n and M n ∼ α min log n where μ,α max and α min are constants depending only on the distribution of X 0 whenever X 0 has a density. In particular, this gives a new elementary proof for the height of uniform random recursive trees H n ∼ e log n that does not use branching random walks.© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 2011

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.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.231 · 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