Sampling, Counting, and Large Deviations for Triangle-Free Graphs Near the Critical Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the following combinatorial counting and sampling problems: can we sample from the Erdős-Rényi random graph$G(n,p)$conditioned on triangle-freeness? Can we approximate (either algorithmically or with a formula) the probability that$G(n,p)$is triangle-free? These are prototypical instances of forbidden substructure problems ubiquitous in combinatorics. The algorithmic questions are instances of approximate sampling and counting for a hypergraph hard-core model. Estimating the probability that$G(n,p)$has no triangles is a fundamental question in probabilistic combinatorics and one that has led to the development of many important tools in the field. Through the work of several authors, the asymnpotics of the logarithm of this probability are known if$p=o(n^{-1/2})$or if$p=\omega(n^{-1/2})$. The regime$p=\Theta(n^{-1/2})$is more mysterious, as this range witnesses a dramatic change in the the typical structural properties of$G(n,p)$conditioned on triangle-freeness. As we show, this change in structure has a profound impact on the performance of sampling algorithms. We give two different efficient sampling algorithms for this problem (and complementary approximate counting algorithms), one that is efficient when$p < c/\sqrt{n}$and one that is efficient when$p > C/\sqrt{n}$for constants$c, C > 0$. The latter algorithm involves a new approach for dealing with large defects in the setting of sampling from low-temperature spin models. Our algorithmic results can be used to give an asymptotic formula for the logarithm of the probability$G(n,p)$is triangle-free when$p < c/\sqrt{n}$. This algorithmic approach to large deviation problems in random graphs is very different than the known approaches in the suBCRitical regime$p=o(n^{-1/2})$(based on the Poisson paradigm) and in the supercritical regime$p=\omega(n^{-1/2})$(based on regularity lemmas or hypergraph containers); in fact, to the best of our knowledge, no asymptotic formula for the log probability in the regime$p=\Theta(n^{-1/2})$was even conjectured previously.
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 | 0.009 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".