MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160769587 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.04640

Lower bounds for graph bootstrap percolation via properties of polynomials

2017· preprint· en· W3160769587 on OpenAlexaff
Lianna Hambardzumyan, Hamed Hatami, Yingjie Qian

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypercubeSimple (philosophy)TorusMathematicsGraphCombinatoricsSet (abstract data type)Percolation (cognitive psychology)Discrete mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a simple method for proving lower bounds for the size of the smallest percolating set in a certain graph bootstrap process. We apply this method to determine the sizes of the smallest percolating sets in multidimensional tori and multidimensional grids (in particular hypercubes). The former answers a question of Morrison and Noel, and the latter provides an alternative and simpler proof for one of their main results.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.292
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.012 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207