Géométrie des arbres récursifs pondérés et à attachement préférentiel affine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study two models of growing recursive trees. For both models, initially the tree only contains one vertex $u_1$ and at each time $n\geq 2$ a new vertex $u_n$ is added to the tree and its parent is chosen randomly according to some rule. In the \emph{weighted recursive tree}, we choose the parent $u_k$ of $u_n$ among $\{u_1,u_2,\dots, u_{n-1}\}$ with probability proportional to $w_k$, where $(w_n)_{n\geq1}$ is some deterministic sequence that we fix beforehand. In the \emph{affine preferential attachment tree with fitnesses}, the probability of choosing any $u_k$ is proportional to $a_k+\mathrm{deg}^{+}(u_k)$, where $\mathrm{deg}^{+}(u_k)$ denotes its current number of children, and the sequence of \emph{fitnesses} $(a_n)_{n\geq 1}$ is deterministic and chosen as a parameter of the model. We show that for any sequence $(a_n)_{n\geq 1}$, the corresponding preferential attachment tree has the same distribution as some weighted recursive tree with a \emph{random} sequence of weights (with some explicit distribution). We then prove almost sure scaling limit convergences for some statistics associated with weighted recursive trees as time goes to infinity, such as degree sequence, height, profile and also the weak convergence of some measures carried on the tree. Thanks to the connection between the two models, these results also apply to affine preferential attachment 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".