MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097534229

Girth and Euclidean distortion / Random walks and Hilbert space compression- notes Probability, Geometry and Groups seminar, Toronto, 05.10.2012

2014· article· en· W7097534229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddingDistortion (music)Upper and lower boundsMetric spaceEuclidean geometryGirth (graph theory)Constant (computer programming)Euclidean space
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recall that for two metric spaces (X, d), Y, d ′ we say that a map f: X → Y is an embedding with distortion α if there exists a constant C> 0 such that: d(x, x ′ ) ≤ 1 C d ′ (f(x), f(x ′)) ≤ α d(x, x ′) for all x, x ′ ∈ X. The constant C represents a rescaling of the metric, so that simply rescaling all distances by a factor of C in X doesn’t incur any distortion, i.e. has α = 1. In particular for Y = ℓ 2 (with the standard norm, denoted by ‖ · ‖) we obtain the notion of a Euclidean embedding: f: X → ℓ 2 and the inequality: d(x, x ′ ) ≤ 1 C ‖f(x) − f(x ′) ‖ ≤ α d(x, x ′) The smallest α for which there exists an embedding into ℓ 2 with distortion α is called the Euclidean distortion of X and denoted by c2(X). We will prove the following bound for embeddings of regular graphs: Theorem 1.1 ([LMN02]). Let G be a finite d-regular graph, d ≥ 3, with girth g. Then the Euclidean distortion of G is Ω ( √ g). It is an open problem if this bound can be improved, for example to c2(G) = Ω(g). Note that for expanders on n vertices we have c2(G) = Ω(log n) and there exist expanders with girth Ω(log n), so at least in this case the bound is not tight. We will give a simple proof of this theorem employing the concept of the Markov type of a metric space. The paper [LMN02] contains also more refined results, using more involved techniques related to Poincaré-type inequalities on graphs. 1 Definition 1.2. We say that a metric space (X, d) has Markov type p if there exists a constant C> 0 such that for every reversible Markov Chain {Xn} ∞ n=0 on X, started in the stationary distribution, and every time T> 0 we have: E d(X0, XT) p ≥ C p T E d(X0, X1) p The best constant C that can be put on the right hand side is denoted by Mp(X) and we say that X has Markov type p with constant Mp(X). In other words, if a metric space has Markov type p, then any reversible random walk on this space will after time T be at a distance at most T 1/p away from its starting point. In general determining Markov type of a given metric space is difficult (REF-peresschramm-etal). However we will only need the following rather intuitive and easy to prove fact:

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo MethodsFrench-language works237,207