A sharp threshold for minimum bounded-depth and bounded-diameter spanning trees and Steiner trees in random networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the complete graph on n vertices, when each edge has a weight which is an exponential random variable, Frieze proved that the minimum spanning tree has weight tending to ζ(3) = 1/13 + 1/23 + 1/33 +… as n → ∞. We consider spanning trees constrained to have depth bounded by k from a specified root. We prove that if k ≥ log2 logn+ω(1), where ω(1) is any function going to ∞ with n, then the minimum bounded-depth spanning tree still has weight tending to ζ(3) as n → ∞, and that if k < log2 logn, then the weight is doubly-exponentially large in log2 logn − k. It is NP-hard to find the minimum bounded-depth spanning tree, but when k≤log2 logn−ω(1), a simple greedy algorithm is asymptotically optimal, and when k ≥ log2 logn+ω(1), an algorithm which makes small changes to the minimum (unbounded depth) spanning tree is asymptotically optimal. We prove similar results for minimum bounded-depth Steiner trees, where the tree must connect a specified set of m vertices, and may or may not include other vertices. In particular, when m=const×n, if k≥log2 logn+ω(1), the minimum bounded-depth Steiner tree on the complete graph has asymptotically the same weight as the minimum Steiner tree, and if 1 ≤ k ≤ log2 logn−ω(1), the weight tends to $$(1 - 2^{ - k} )\sqrt {8m/n} \left[ {\sqrt {2mn} /2^k } \right]^{1/(2^k - 1)}$$ in both expectation and probability. The same results hold for minimum bounded-diameter Steiner trees when the diameter bound is 2k; when the diameter bound is increased from 2k to 2k+1, the minimum Steiner tree weight is reduced by a factor of $$2^{1/(2^k - 1)}$$ .
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 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".