A branching process with deletions and mergers that matches the threshold for hypercube percolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We define a graph process $\mathcal{G}(p,q)$ based on a discrete branching process with deletions and mergers, which is inspired by the 4-cycle structure of both the hypercube $Q_d$ and the lattice $\mathbb{Z}^d$ for large $d$. Individuals have Poisson offspring distribution with mean $1+p$ and certain deletions and mergers occur with probability $q$; these parameters correspond to the mean number of edges discovered from a given vertex in an exploration of a percolation cluster and to the probability that a non-backtracking path of length four closes a cycle, respectively. We prove survival and extinction under certain conditions on $p$ and $q$ that heuristically match the known expansions of the critical probabilities for bond percolation on the lattice $\mathbb{Z}^d$ and the hypercube $Q_d$. These expansions have been rigorously established by Hara and Slade in 1995, and van der Hofstad and Slade in 2006, respectively. We stress that our method does not constitute a branching process proof for the percolation threshold. The analysis of the graph process survival is considerably more challenging than for branching processes in discrete time, due to the interdependence between the descendants of different individuals in the same generation. In fact, it is left open whether the survival probability of $\mathcal{G}(p,q)$ is monotone in $p$ or $q$; we discuss this and some other open problems regarding the new graph process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".