Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Sharp Thresholds for Factors in Random Graphs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For every strictly 1-balanced graph F, the sharp threshold for an F-factor in G(n,p) is exactly the sharp threshold for the disappearance of F-isolated vertices.

desk verdict A serious, well-written proof of Ruciński's conjecture that has a real gap in Section 5.5, plus a minor r=2 mismatch; fix the gap and it's a strong paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14138 v2 pith:KFLAT5N5 submitted 2024-11-21 math.CO math.PR

Fabian Burghart , Annika Heckel , Marc Kaufmann , Noela Müller , Matija Pasch This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.PR MSC 05C7005C8060C05
keywords F-factorsharpthresholdrandomgraphG(np)strictly1-balancedF-isolatedverticesF-graphcouplingperfectmatchinginhypergraphs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that for every strictly 1-balanced graph F, the sharp threshold for the random graph G(n,p) to contain an F-factor — a partition of the vertex set into vertex-disjoint copies of F — is exactly the sharp threshold for the disappearance of F-isolated vertices, meaning vertices that lie in no copy of F. This confirms a conjecture from 1992 that the two thresholds coincide for all strictly 1-balanced F, settling the leading constant in the F-factor threshold for a broad natural class of graphs. Earlier results at this precision covered only complete graphs and a restricted class of 'nice' graphs. The proof constructs a coupling between G(n,p) and a random F-graph so that, with high probability, every F-edge of the latter appears as a copy of F in the former; the F-factor threshold then follows from the sharp threshold for perfect matchings in random hypergraphs.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the random F-graph $H_F(n,\pi)$ together with a classification of induced F-edges. An F-edge is induced by an F-graph when it is not one of the F-edges but is forced to appear as a copy of F in the shadow graph; such forced edges are exactly what can break a direct coupling. A classification lemma says that every induced F-edge is induced by a sub-F-graph with at most $e(F)$ F-edges that is either an avoidable configuration (a connected F-graph of nullity at least two) or a clean F-cycle (a cycle of F-edges overlapping in single vertices, or two F-edges overlapping in exactly two vertices). Sparse clean F-cycles, consisting of two F-edges sharing exactly one graph edge, have a probability mismatch with their shadow graphs, so the paper inserts independent dummy edges for them and works with the random d-graph $G^*(n,p)$; every clean d-cycle then has exactly $k e(F)$ edges and is strictly balanced. Clean cycles in $H_F$ and $G^*$ are matched with high probability through a Poisson approximation theorem, and the two-stage coupling then extends the matching to all F-edges by bounding conditional inclusion probabilities.

What would settle it

Find a strictly 1-balanced graph F and an F-graph with an induced F-edge whose minimal inducing subgraph has more than e(F) F-edges and is neither an avoidable configuration nor a clean F-cycle, or compute for a concrete F (such as a four-cycle) that the F-factor threshold differs from the threshold for disappearance of F-isolated vertices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The main theorem states that for any strictly 1-balanced graph F with s>0 edges on r≥2 vertices, the sharp threshold for the existence of an F-factor in G(n,p) is $$p^* = \left(\frac{\operatorname{aut}(F)}{r!}\,\frac{\ln n}{\binom{n-1}{r-1}}\right)^{1/s},$$ precisely the sharp threshold for the disappearance of F-isolated vertices given by Theorem 1.1. Here strictly 1-balanced means that every proper nontrivial subgraph S of F has smaller 1-density, $e(S)/(v(S)-1) < e(F)/(v(F)-1)$, and $\operatorname{aut}(F)$ is the number of automorphisms of F. The supporting coupling theorem states that for suitable p and any $\pi \le (1-n^{-\delta}) p^{e(F)}$, the random graph G(n,p) and the random F-graph $H_F(n,\pi)$ can be coupled so that, with high probability, every F-edge of $H_F$ is present as a copy of F in G. The paper further notes that the same results hold for strictly 1-balanced uniform hypergraphs, with a simplified proof in uniformity greater than 3.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the claim that whenever a copy of F is forced to appear by other copies, the forcing configuration is always one of two known small types; if a third type existed, the coupling could fail outside the controlled error event.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every strictly 1-balanced graph F, the sharp threshold for F-factors is the explicit formula above, determined only by the edge count, vertex count, and automorphism count of F.
  • The F-factor threshold equals the threshold for the disappearance of F-isolated vertices, so the last vertex not contained in any copy of F is, with high probability, the only obstruction to an F-factor.
  • The coupling transfers threshold results from random F-graphs to G(n,p), making results for perfect matchings, and potentially for connectivity and loose Hamilton cycles, available for arbitrary strictly 1-balanced F.
  • The same sharp threshold and coupling hold for strictly 1-balanced uniform hypergraphs, with a simpler proof when the uniformity exceeds 3.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The constructed coupling is the standard ingredient for hitting-time results, so it is plausible that in the random graph process the step at which the last F-isolated vertex disappears also contains an F-factor for every strictly 1-balanced F; the paper does not state this.
  • The dummy-edge device for sparse clean cycles may be reusable in other threshold problems where a rare subconfiguration causes the expected counts of the random graph and the auxiliary structure to differ by a polynomial factor.
  • The strict balancedness of clean d-cycles suggests that other hypergraph threshold results, such as k-connectivity or loose Hamilton cycles, could be transferred to G(n,p) for arbitrary strictly 1-balanced F, not only the perfect-matching case.
  • A concrete numerical check for a small F, such as a four-cycle, around $(1\pm\varepsilon)p^*$ would test how quickly the F-factor probability transitions; the theorem predicts a sharp jump within that window.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies sharp thresholds for F-factors in the Erdős–Rényi random graph G(n,p), where F is a strictly 1-balanced graph. The main result, Theorem 1.5, states that for every strictly 1-balanced F with s>0 edges on r≥2 vertices, the sharp threshold for the existence of an F-factor coincides with the sharp threshold p* for the disappearance of F-isolated vertices, confirming a conjecture of Ruciński. The proof follows the coupling strategy of Riordan and Heckel: it constructs a coupling (Theorem 1.6) between G(n,p) and the random F-graph HF(n,π) such that whp every F-edge of HF is present in G. The coupling handles the main technical difficulty, the existence of induced F-edges, by classifying them via Riordan's Lemma 3.1 into avoidable configurations and clean F-cycles. A novel ingredient is the introduction of 'dummy edges' and the auxiliary random d-graph G*(n,p) to treat sparse clean F-cycles. Once the coupling is established, Theorem 1.5 follows by merging F-edges on the same vertex set to obtain a random r-uniform hypergraph and applying Kahn's solution to Shamir's problem (Theorem 1.4).

Significance. If correct, the paper resolves a thirty-year-old conjecture by Ruciński and unifies the previously known cases (complete graphs and 'nice' graphs) into a general statement for all strictly 1-balanced graphs. The coupling theorem (Theorem 1.6) is a strong, flexible tool that may transfer other spanning-structure results from random hypergraphs to random graphs. The paper contains several original ideas, notably the use of dummy edges to balance the probabilities of sparse clean cycles and the proof that clean d-cycles are strictly balanced (Lemma 3.4), which is used to control overlaps. The exposition is generally clear and the proof is detailed, building on the substantial prior work of Riordan and Heckel.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.5] The proof that Qcb = 0 unless B holds contains an unjustified step. For each induced F-edge F′ of the bad cycle Fi, the text claims 'there exists a cycle C(F′) in C1 that induces F′'. However, Lemma 3.1 only guarantees a clean F-cycle in the F-graph of the shadow graph of HF(n,π), not necessarily a clean cycle whose F-edges are all present in HF(n,π). The set C1 consists of clean cycles that are actually present in HF(n,π) (and coupled to G*). A clean cycle appearing only in the shadow graph may have some F-edges missing from HF(n,π), so it is not in C1. Consequently, the constructed configuration (Fi\I) ∪ ⋃_{F′∈I} C(F′) is not shown to be a sub-F-graph of HF(n,π), and the conclusion 'so B2 holds' does not follow. This is a load-bearing gap in the proof of Proposition 5.1, because bad cycles with length > e(F) are not excluded by the definition of C1.
  2. [Section 5.5 and Section 5.2] Even if each C(F′) were in C1, the avoidable configuration (Fi\I) ∪ ⋃_{F′∈I} C(F′) may have more than 2e(F)^2 F-edges, so it is not covered by the event B2, which only controls avoidable configurations with at most 2e(F)^2 F-edges. The text does not provide any bound on e(Fi), the length of a bad cycle; the index set C_1^c in Section 5.3 enumerates all potential clean cycles, including those of arbitrarily large length. Thus a long bad cycle with only one induced F-edge yields a connected F-graph of nullity at least 2 and size exceeding 2e(F)^2, which need not contain a bounded avoidable subconfiguration. The fact that P(B2)=o(1) is therefore insufficient to rule it out. An additional argument bounding the length of bad cycles, or an extension of B2 to unbounded avoidable configurations with a corresponding whp bound, is required.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Theorems 1.5, 1.6] The statements of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 are for r≥2, but the proof in Section 3.1 begins 'We fix a strictly 1-balanced graph F on r > 2 vertices' and the case r=2 is never treated. For r=2, the graph F is necessarily K2, and the result is the classical perfect matching threshold, which is known and also follows from Theorem 1.2 (the complete-graph case). The paper should either add a short separate argument for r=2 or modify the statements of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 to r>2. As written, the theorem statements exceed what the proof establishes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] In the proof of Proposition 4.4, the phrase 'there is a coupling of of (X_C)_C' contains a duplicated 'of' and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 5.3] The statement 'π′j = 1 exactly if Fj is in some cycle in C1' would benefit from clarification: 'in' means 'is one of the F-edges of'. This distinction matters because Section 5.4 and Section 5.5 rely on the difference between an F-edge being a member of a clean cycle and being merely induced by its shadow graph.
  3. [Section 2.4] The display 'cF(G(n,p)) = cF(G*(n,p)) ⊇ HF(n,π)' uses the notation cF(G*) without a definition. Since G* is a d-graph containing dummy edges, it should be stated explicitly that cF(G*) refers to the set of copies of F using only the usual edges of G*.
  4. [Section 4.1, Lemma 4.2] In the proof of Lemma 4.2, the inequality chain leading to f(S) < 0 is concise; in particular, the application of Lemma 3.4 to the case where S includes the dummy edge is implicit. A short explanatory sentence would improve readability and prevent ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is derived from an external coupling argument plus Kahn's solution to Shamir's problem, not from the conjecture it proves.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. Theorem 1.5 is obtained by combining Theorem 1.6 with Kahn's Theorem 1.4, and the threshold p* in Theorem 1.1 is quoted from Janson--Luczak--Ruciński/Ruciński as the sharp threshold for disappearance of F-isolated vertices. The lower bound for the F-factor threshold is the trivial F-isolated obstruction, and the upper bound is supplied by the coupling in Theorem 1.6; p* is not defined in terms of F-factor existence, so the result is not self-definitional. No parameters are fitted to a subset of data and then called predictions, and no 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors is used to force the choice of coupling. The self-citations [5] and [14] are used for context or as alternative arguments, and the proof template from [13] is reworked in Sections 3--5 rather than taken as a black box; the classification Lemma 3.1 is quoted from the external paper [24]. The Section 5.5 concern about bounding e(F_i) for long bad cycles is a potential proof gap rather than circularity: even if the union (F_i \ I) ∪ ⋃ C(F') is not shown to have at most 2e(F)^2 F-edges, that would only mean the case analysis is incomplete, not that the theorem reduces to its own inputs. Accordingly, the paper has no significant circularity; the score reflects the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The proof rests on several deep external theorems (Kahn's Shamir result, Riordan's classification, Chen-Stein) and the domain restriction to strictly 1-balanced graphs. The only new objects are dummy edges and the d-graph; these have no falsifiable outside-the-proof content. No fitted parameters appear; delta and epsilon are existential constants chosen small enough, not data-derived.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Theorem 1.1: sharp threshold for disappearance of F-isolated vertices equals p* (Janson-Luczak-Ruciński / Ruciński).
    Defines the claimed threshold and supplies the lower-bound half of Theorem 1.5.
  • standard math Theorem 1.4 (Kahn): sharp threshold for perfect matchings in random r-uniform hypergraph H_r(n,pi).
    External engine used to derive the F-factor threshold from the coupling; prior solution of Shamir's problem.
  • standard math Lemma 3.1 (Riordan [24]): every induced F-edge is induced by an avoidable configuration or a clean F-cycle of at most e(F) F-edges.
    Load-bearing classification; all coupling-failure arguments depend on it.
  • standard math Theorem 4.3 (Arratia-Goldstein-Gordon Chen-Stein bound).
    Used to couple clean F-cycles and clean d-cycles in Proposition 4.4.
  • domain assumption F is strictly 1-balanced with r>=2 vertices and s>0 edges; n is divisible by r.
    Theorem is restricted to this class; F-factor requires divisibility.
  • standard math 2-vertex-connectivity of F follows from strict 1-balancedness (cited from [24]).
    Used implicitly in Section 3.1 and in clean-cycle arguments.
invented entities (2)
  • Dummy edge
    purpose: Added to sparse clean F-cycles so each clean d-cycle has k e(F) edges and is strictly balanced, enabling probability matching with clean F-cycles.
    Technical device in Definition 3.3; no falsifiable handle outside the proof.
  • d-graph G*(n,p)
    purpose: Auxiliary random graph containing dummy edges; used in the coupling, then dummy edges discarded to recover G(n,p).
    Auxiliary model; not an empirical object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp Thresholds for Factors in Random Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFLAT5N5

@misc{pith2026241114138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp Thresholds for Factors in Random Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFLAT5N5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14138}
}
abstract

Let $F$ be a graph on $r$ vertices and let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices. Then an $F$-factor in $G$ is a subgraph of $G$ composed of $n/r$ vertex-disjoint copies of $F$, if $r$ divides $n$. In other words, an $F$-factor yields a partition of the $n$ vertices of $G$. The study of such $F$-factors in the Erd\H{o}s-R\'enyi random graph dates back to Erd\H{o}s himself. Decades later, in 2008, Johansson, Kahn and Vu established the thresholds for the existence of an $F$-factor for strictly 1-balanced $F$ -- up to the leading constant. The sharp thresholds, meaning the leading constants, were obtained only recently by Riordan and Heckel, but only for complete graphs $F=K_r$ and for so-called nice graphs. Their results rely on sophisticated couplings that utilize the recent, celebrated solution of Shamir's problem by Kahn. We extend the couplings by Riordan and Heckel to any strictly 1-balanced $F$ and thereby obtain the sharp threshold for the existence of an $F$-factor. In particular, we confirm the thirty year old conjecture by Ruc\'inski that this sharp threshold indeed coincides with the sharp threshold for the disappearance of the last vertices which are not contained in a copy of $F$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sparse clean F-cycle, where F is the graph obtained from K4 by deleting an edge. ideas underlying the proof, we will use intuitive descriptions of the central concepts and postpone the technical formal definitions to the next section. Finally, recall from Section 1.1 that Theorem 1.5 follows from Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.4. 2.1 Induced Edges, Avoidable Configurations and Clean Cycles When trying to construct a co… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Universality in random graphs via optimal linking systems: trees and beyond

    math.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    An absolute constant C suffices for bounded-degree tree universality in G(n, C ln n/n), and cycle-factor universality is optimal up to constants via depth-optimal linking systems.

  2. Tree tilings in random regular graphs

    math.CO 2024-12 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    For every fixed epsilon, with high probability the random d-regular graph contains a vertex-partition into copies of any prescribed tree of size at most (1-epsilon)d/ln d.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The first occurrence of Hamilton cycles in random graphs

    Miklós Ajtai, János Komlós, and Endre Szemerédi. The first occurrence of Hamilton cycles in random graphs. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 27:173–178, 1985

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    Threshold functions forH-factors

    Noga Alon and Raphael Yuster. Threshold functions forH-factors. Combin. Probab. Comput., 2(2):137–144, 1993

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Two moments suffice for Poisson ap- proximations: the Chen-Stein method.The Annals of Probability, pages 9–25, 1989

    Richard Arratia, Larry Goldstein, and Louis Gordon. Two moments suffice for Poisson ap- proximations: the Chen-Stein method.The Annals of Probability, pages 9–25, 1989

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Random graphs of small order

    Béla Bollobás and Andrew Thomason. Random graphs of small order. In Random graphs ’83 (Poznań, 1983), volume 118 ofNorth-Holland Math. Stud., pages 47–97. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    The hitting time of nice factors, 2024

    Fabian Burghart, Marc Kaufmann, Noela Müller, and Matija Pasch. The hitting time of nice factors, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Spanning-cycles in random graphs.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 32(5):833–850, 2023

    Alberto Espuny Díaz and Yury Person. Spanning-cycles in random graphs.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 32(5):833–850, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Loose Hamilton Cycles in Random Uniform Hypergraphs

    Andrzej Dudek and Alan Frieze. Loose Hamilton cycles in random uniform hypergraphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1006.1909, 2010

    work page Pith review arXiv 1909

  8. [8]

    Optimal divisibility conditions for loose Hamilton cycles in random hypergraphs

    Andrzej Dudek, Alan Frieze, Po-Shen Loh, and Shelley Speiss. Optimal divisibility conditions for loose Hamilton cycles in random hypergraphs. the electronic journal of combinatorics, pages P44–P44, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    On the existence of a factor of degree one of a connected random graph

    Pál Erdős and Alfréd Rényi. On the existence of a factor of degree one of a connected random graph. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 17:359–368, 1966

    1966

  2. [10]

    Loose Hamilton cycles in random 3-uniform hypergraphs.The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, pages N28–N28, 2010

    Alan Frieze. Loose Hamilton cycles in random 3-uniform hypergraphs.The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, pages N28–N28, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    A note on spanningKr-cycles in random graphs.AIMS Mathematics, 5(5):4849– 4852, 2020

    Alan Frieze. A note on spanningKr-cycles in random graphs.AIMS Mathematics, 5(5):4849– 4852, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Nonvertex-balanced factors in random graphs.Journal of Graph Theory, 78(4):269–286, 2015

    Stefanie Gerke and Andrew McDowell. Nonvertex-balanced factors in random graphs.Journal of Graph Theory, 78(4):269–286, 2015. 17

    2015

  5. [13]

    Random triangles in random graphs

    Annika Heckel. Random triangles in random graphs. Random Structures & Algorithms, 59(4):616–621, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    The hitting time of clique factors

    Annika Heckel, Marc Kaufmann, Noela Müller, and Matija Pasch. The hitting time of clique factors. Random Structures & Algorithms, 65(2):275–312, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization

    Svante Janson, Tomasz Łuczak, and Andrzej Ruciński.Random graphs. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    Factors in random graphs.Random Structures & Algorithms, 33(1):1–28, 2008

    Anders Johansson, Jeff Kahn, and Van Vu. Factors in random graphs.Random Structures & Algorithms, 33(1):1–28, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Hitting times for Shamir’s problem

    Jeff Kahn. Hitting times for Shamir’s problem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 375(1):627–668, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Asymptotics for Shamir’s problem.Advances in Mathematics, 422:109019, 2023

    Jeff Kahn. Asymptotics for Shamir’s problem.Advances in Mathematics, 422:109019, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Thresholds and expectation thresholds.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 16(3):495–502, 2007

    Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai. Thresholds and expectation thresholds.Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, 16(3):495–502, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    Perfect matchings in random uniform hypergraphs.Random Struct

    Jeong Han Kim. Perfect matchings in random uniform hypergraphs.Random Struct. Algo- rithms, 23(2):111–132, 2003

    2003

  13. [21]

    Triangle factors in random graphs.Combinatorics, Probability and Com- puting, 6:337 – 347, 1997

    Michael Krivelevich. Triangle factors in random graphs.Combinatorics, Probability and Com- puting, 6:337 – 347, 1997

    1997

  14. [22]

    A proof of the Kahn–Kalai conjecture.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 37(1):235–243, 2024

    Jinyoung Park and Huy Pham. A proof of the Kahn–Kalai conjecture.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 37(1):235–243, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    On the strength of connectedness of a random hypergraph

    David Poole. On the strength of connectedness of a random hypergraph. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 22(1):P1.69, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Random cliques in random graphs and sharp thresholds forF-factors

    Oliver Riordan. Random cliques in random graphs and sharp thresholds forF-factors. Random Structures & Algorithms, 61(4):619–637, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    The Janson inequalities for general up-sets.Random Struc- tures & Algorithms, 46(2):391–395, 2015

    Oliver Riordan and Lutz Warnke. The Janson inequalities for general up-sets.Random Struc- tures & Algorithms, 46(2):391–395, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    N. Ross. Fundamentals of Stein’s method.Probab. Surv., 8:210–293, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Matching and covering the vertices of a random graph by copies of a given graph

    Andrzej Ruciński. Matching and covering the vertices of a random graph by copies of a given graph. Discrete Math., 105(1-3):185–197, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    Threshold functions for extension statements.Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, 53(2):286–305, 1990

    Joel Spencer. Threshold functions for extension statements.Journal of Combinatorial Theory Series A, 53(2):286–305, 1990

    1990

  21. [29]

    Tree-matchings in random graphs

    Tomasz Łuczak and Andrzej Ruciński. Tree-matchings in random graphs. Research Report 86-87, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 1987

    1987

  22. [30]

    Tree-matchings in graph processes.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 4(1):107–120, 1991

    Tomasz Łuczak and Andrzej Ruciński. Tree-matchings in graph processes.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 4(1):107–120, 1991. 18

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.