MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119668743 · doi:10.1214/20-ejp574

On a random walk that grows its own tree

2021· article· en· W3119668743 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

VenueElectronic Journal of Probability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsRandom walkBernoulli's principleTree (set theory)CombinatoricsVertex (graph theory)Loop-erased random walkRandom walker algorithmRandom graphDiscrete mathematicsHeterogeneous random walk in one dimensionRandom treeGraphStatisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random walks on dynamic graphs have received increasingly more attention from different academic communities over the last decade. Despite the relatively large literature, little is known about random walks that construct the graph where they walk while moving around. In this paper we study one of the simplest conceivable discrete time models of this kind, which works as follows: before every walker step, with probability $p$ a new leaf is added to the vertex currently occupied by the walker. The model grows trees and we call it the Bernoulli Growth Random Walk (BGRW). We show that the BGRW walker is transient and has a well-defined linear speed $c(p)>0$ for any $0<p\leq 1$. Moreover, we show that the tree as seen by the walker converges (in a suitable sense) to a random tree that is one-ended. Some natural open problems about this tree and variants of our model are collected at the end of the paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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