MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088894617

Pascal's Triangle and the Kesten-McKay Law

2020· preprint· en· W3088894617 on OpenAlexaff
Iris Stephanie Arenas Longoria, James A. Mingo

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRandom Matrices and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjacency matrixMathematicsRandom walkAdjacency listCombinatoricsPascal (unit)GraphRandom graphDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kesten-McKay law describes the number of closed walks on a regular tree or, equivalently, the expected eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix of a random regular graph. It is a widely studied and heavily used distribution. We show that the moments of the Kesten-McKay law can be generated by the truncation of Pascal's triangle. As introduced by Kesten and later by McKay, these laws were indexed by the degree of a regular graph. However the parameter can be any positive real number even though there is no longer an associated random walk or graph. Nevertheless, we show that our triangle rule remains valid in the continuous case. Thus, we obtain a new stochastic process which we call the Kesten-McKay process. Using free independence, we give an explicit realization of the process using random matrices. Along the way we will introduce many of the standard distributions (the 'Lego blocks') of free probability. By enabling the reader to play with these distributions, we hope to entice the reader into the new world of free probability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.074 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicRandom Matrices and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207