MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127987152 · doi:10.1214/22-aap1899

Geometry of random Cayley graphs of Abelian groups

2023· article· en· W3127987152 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan Hermon, Sam Olesker-Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Probability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsCayley graphMathematicsAbelian groupConjectureSpectral radiusRandom graphVertex (graph theory)Discrete mathematicsGraphEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider the random Cayley graph of a finite Abelian group G with respect to k generators chosen uniformly at random, with 1≪logk≪log|G|. Draw a vertex U∼Unif(G). We show that the graph distance dist(id,U) from the identity to U concentrates at a particular value M, which is the minimal radius of a ball in Zk of cardinality at least |G|, under mild conditions. In other words, the distance from the identity for all but o(|G|) of the elements of G lies in the interval [M−o(M),M+o(M)]. In the regime k≳log|G|, we show that the diameter of the graph is also asymptotically M. In the spirit of a conjecture of Aldous and Diaconis (Technical Report 231 (1985)), this M depends only on k and |G|, not on the algebraic structure of G. Write d(G) for the minimal size of a generating subset of G. We prove that the order of the spectral gap is |G|−2/k when k−d(G)≍k and |G| lies in a density-1 subset of N or when k−2d(G)≍k. This extends, for Abelian groups, a celebrated result of Alon and Roichman (Random Structures Algorithms 5 (1994) 271–284). The aforementioned results all hold with high probability over the random Cayley graph.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied ProbabilitySame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207