MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380992167 · doi:10.37236/11307

On the Running Time of Hypergraph Bootstrap Percolation

2023· article· en· W4380992167 on OpenAlexafffund
Jonathan A. Noel, Arjun Ranganathan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIndian Institute of Science Education and Research MohaliIndian Institute of Science Education and Research PuneUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsHypergraphCombinatoricsMathematicsConjectureUpper and lower boundsConstant (computer programming)GraphOmegaComplete graphDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given $r\geq2$ and an $r$-uniform hypergraph $F$, the $F$-bootstrap process starts with an $r$-uniform hypergraph $H$ and, in each time step, every hyperedge which "completes" a copy of $F$ is added to $H$. The maximum running time of this process has been recently studied in the case that $r=2$ and $F$ is a complete graph by Bollob\'as, Przykucki, Riordan and Sahasrabudhe [Electron. J. Combin. 24(2) (2017), Paper No. 2.16], Matzke [arXiv:1510.06156v2] and Balogh, Kronenberg, Pokrovskiy and Szab\'o [arXiv:1907.04559v1]. We consider the case that $r\geq3$ and $F$ is the complete $r$-uniform hypergraph on $k$ vertices. Our main results are that the maximum running time is $\Theta\left(n^r\right)$ if $k\geq r+2$ and $\Omega\left(n^{r-1}\right)$ if $k=r+1$. For the case $k=r+1$, we conjecture that our lower bound is optimal up to a constant factor when $r=3$, but suspect that it can be improved by more than a constant factor for large $r$.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicStochastic processes and statistical mechanicsFrench-language works237,207