A note on estimating the dimension from a random geometric graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let $G_n$ be a random geometric graph with vertex set $[n]$ based on $n$ i.i.d.\ random vectors $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ drawn from an unknown density $f$ on $\R^d$. An edge $(i,j)$ is present when $\|X_i -X_j\| \le r_n$, for a given threshold $r_n$ possibly depending upon $n$, where $\| \cdot \|$ denotes Euclidean distance. We study the problem of estimating the dimension $d$ of the underlying space when we have access to the adjacency matrix of the graph but do not know $r_n$ or the vectors $X_i$. The main result of the paper is that there exists an estimator of $d$ that converges to $d$ in probability as $n \to \infty$ for all densities with $\int f^5 < \infty$ whenever $n^{3/2} r_n^d \to \infty$ and $r_n = o(1)$. The conditions allow very sparse graphs since when $n^{3/2} r_n^d \to 0$, the graph contains isolated edges only, with high probability. We also show that, without any condition on the density, a consistent estimator of $d$ exists when $n r_n^d \to \infty$ and $r_n = o(1)$.
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 | 0.010 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".