MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388456631 · doi:10.1002/rsa.21197

Sharp thresholds in adaptive random graph processes

2023· article· en· W4388456631 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaUniversity of TorontoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsRandom regular graphGraphMonotone polygonNull graphCombinatoricsRandom graphLine graphComplement graphDiscrete mathematicsVoltage graphGeometryPathwidth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ‐process is a single player game in which the player is initially presented the empty graph on vertices. In each step, a subset of edges is independently sampled according to a distribution . The player then selects one edge from , and adds to its current graph. For a fixed monotone increasing graph property , the objective of the player is to force the graph to satisfy in as few steps as possible. The ‐process generalizes both the Achlioptas process and the semi‐random graph process. We prove a sufficient condition for the existence of a sharp threshold for in the ‐process. Using this condition, in the semi‐random process we prove the existence of a sharp threshold when corresponds to being Hamiltonian or to containing a perfect matching. This resolves two of the open questions proposed by Ben‐Eliezer et al. (RSA, 2020).

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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