Embedding theorems for random graphs with specified degrees
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given an $n\times n$ symmetric matrix $W\in [0,1]^{[n]\times [n]}$ , let ${\mathcal G}(n,W)$ be the random graph obtained by independently including each edge $jk\in \binom{[n]}{2}$ with probability $W_{jk}=W_{kj}$ . Given a degree sequence $\textbf{d}=(d_1,\ldots, d_n)$ , let ${\mathcal G}(n,\textbf{d})$ denote a uniformly random graph with degree sequence $\textbf{d}$ . We couple ${\mathcal G}(n,W)$ and ${\mathcal G}(n,\textbf{d})$ together so that asymptotically almost surely ${\mathcal G}(n,W)$ is a subgraph of ${\mathcal G}(n,\textbf{d})$ , where $W$ is some function of $\textbf{d}$ . Let $\Delta (\textbf{d})$ denote the maximum degree in $\textbf{d}$ . Our coupling result is optimal when $\Delta (\textbf{d})^2\ll \|\textbf{d}\|_1$ , that is, $W_{ij}$ is asymptotic to ${\mathbb P}(ij\in{\mathcal G}(n,\textbf{d}))$ for every $i,j\in [n]$ . We also have coupling results for $\textbf{d}$ that are not constrained by the condition $\Delta (\textbf{d})^2\ll \|\textbf{d}\|_1$ . For such $\textbf{d}$ our coupling result is still close to optimal, in the sense that $W_{ij}$ is asymptotic to ${\mathbb P}(ij\in{\mathcal G}(n,\textbf{d}))$ for most pairs $ij\in \binom{[n]}{2}$ .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it