MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128038861 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.02975

Further Results and Discussions on Random Cayley Graphs

2019· preprint· en· W3128038861 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Hermon, Sam Olesker-Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCayley graphMathematicsCombinatoricsRandom graphAbelian groupConjectureSimple random sampleRandom walkDiscrete mathematicsUniversality (dynamical systems)GraphStatisticsPopulationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consider the random Cayley graph of a finite group $G$ with respect to $k$ generators chosen uniformly at random, with $1 \ll k \lesssim \log |G|$. The results of this article supplement those in the three main papers on random Cayley graphs. The majority of the results are inspired by a `universality' conjecture of Aldous and Diaconis (1985). To start, we study the limit profile of cutoff for the simple random walk on this random graph, as well as a detailed investigation into mixing properties when $G = \mathbb Z_p^d$ with $p$ prime. We then exposit a proof of Diaconis and Saloff-Coste (1994) establishing lack of cutoff when $k \asymp 1$. We move onto discussing material from our companion paper on matrix groups. We then study distance of a typical element of $G$ from the identity in an $L_q$-type graph distance in the Abelian set-up. Finally, we give necessary and sufficient conditions for $k$ independent uniform elements of $G$ to generate $G$, ie for the random Cayley graph to be connected, based on work of Pomerance (2001). 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.128 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207