Universal height and width bounds for random trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We prove non-asymptotic stretched exponential tail bounds on the height of a randomly sampled node in a random combinatorial tree, which we use to prove bounds on the heights and widths of random trees from a variety of models. Our results allow us to prove a conjecture and settle an open problem of Janson [13], and nearly prove another conjecture and settle another open problem from the same work (up to a polylogarithmic factor). The key tool for our work is an equivalence in law between the degrees along the path to a random node in a random tree with given degree statistics, and a random truncation of a size-biased ordering of the degrees of such a tree. We also exploit a Poissonization trick introduced by Camarri and Pitman [9] in the context of inhomogeneous continuum random trees, which we adapt to the setting of random trees with fixed degrees. Finally, we propose and justify a change to the conventions of branching process nomenclature: the name “Galton–Watson trees” should be permanently retired by the community, and replaced with the name “Bienaymé trees”.
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 | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".