Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Majority Dynamics on Assortative Sparse Stochastic Block Models

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read On sparse assortative block graphs, a weighted camp advantage—not raw majority—sets the time to opinion unanimity.

desk verdict Solid sparse-SBM majority-dynamics paper: weighted advantage drives sharp constant/subpoly/poly thresholds with matching I_0 bounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24652 v1 pith:2JGIWXPU submitted 2026-07-27 math.PR cs.DMcs.ITmath.COmath.IT

Ioana Dumitriu , Muchen Ju , Hai-Xiao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRcs.DMcs.ITmath.COmath.IT MSC 60K3505C8091D3060C05
keywords majoritydynamicsstochasticblockmodelsparserandomgraphsweightedadvantageflipprobabilitieslargedeviationsopinionassortativenetworks
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

Majority dynamics lets every person adopt the majority opinion among their neighbors. This paper runs that process on a network that is redrawn each step from a sparse assortative stochastic block model: same-opinion pairs connect more readily than opposite-opinion pairs. The authors show that the quantity that actually controls how fast one color sweeps the population is a weighted advantage that multiplies each camp by the opposite edge density, not the ordinary head-count difference. Under a mild initial majority they obtain three sharp regimes: near or above a weighted threshold, unanimity arrives in at most three steps; a milder weighted deficit is erased in sub-polynomial time; a linear weighted deficit still yields unanimity in a precise polynomial number of steps whose exponent is a large-deviation rate function of the initial sizes. Matching lower bounds confirm that the same exponent is essentially necessary away from the weighted threshold. The result matters because it isolates the exact geometric quantity that turns a fragile majority into irreversible consensus on community-structured sparse graphs.

What carries the argument

The weighted advantage Δ̃_t=b|B_t|−a|R_t| together with sharp one-vertex flip-probability estimates for sparse binomial differences. These estimates convert the local majority vote into Gaussian, moderate-deviation, or large-deviation asymptotics that feed one-step drift and concentration bounds, which in turn drive the constant-time, subpolynomial, and block-amplification arguments.

What would settle it

Simulate the process for large N with initial weighted advantage just below −N/√log N and check whether the median time to blue unanimity stays bounded by three steps or jumps into a visibly growing sub-polynomial regime; alternatively, fix a camp ratio bounded away below a/b and verify that the empirical exponent of the extinction time tracks I_0 from below.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When majority dynamics is run on a resampled sparse assortative stochastic block model with a>b>1, the weighted advantage Δ̃_t=b|B_t|−a|R_t| (rather than the unweighted size difference alone) governs the high-probability time to blue unanimity. Three nested regimes appear: Δ̃_0≳−N/√ log N yields unanimity in three updates; a o(N) weighted deficit yields N^{o(1)} updates; a linear weighted deficit with Δ_0≫√(N/log N) yields N^{I_0+o(1)} updates, where I_0 is the large-deviation rate (ReLU(√(a|R_0|/N)−√(b|B_0|/N)))^2, and the same exponent is necessary when the initial camp ratio stays a fixed distance below a/b.

Load-bearing premise

The edge density between opposite camps is forced above the connectivity threshold for every possible opinion split that can appear, so the graph never becomes disconnected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near the weighted threshold a constant-size or slowly growing deficit is erased in three updates, giving an explicit sparse-block analogue of the “power of few.”
  • The polynomial exponent I_0 coincides with the information-theoretic mismatch rate of community detection in the same SBM, linking consensus time to exact-recovery thresholds.
  • Away from the weighted threshold the same exponent is both necessary and sufficient, so the time to unanimity is tightly characterized by a single large-deviation function of the initial sizes.
  • The one-vertex flip-probability estimates for sparse binomial differences are stated in a form reusable for other sparse majority or bootstrap processes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the connectivity assumption is stronger than the partition-dependent threshold, temporary disconnection might allow minority pockets to persist; checking whether unanimity still occurs when b中1 would test the robustness of the weighted-advantage picture.
  • The same weighted advantage should control the disassortative regime once the sign of the feedback is reversed, potentially producing oscillation rather than absorption.
  • Spatial or degree-corrected versions of the model would replace the global weighted advantage by a local or degree-weighted analogue, offering a concrete route to more realistic opinion networks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies synchronous majority dynamics on a binary stochastic block model that is resampled at each step from the current opinion partition, in the sparse assortative regime α=a log N/N, β=b log N/N with a>b>1. The main conceptual claim is that the weighted advantage Δ̃_t = b|B_t| − a|R_t|, not the raw majority Δ_t, governs convergence to unanimity. Three regimes are established: (i) constant-time (one, two, or three updates) blue unanimity above sharp weighted-advantage thresholds at the N/√log N scale (Theorem 1.6); (ii) subpolynomial time N^{o(1)} when the weighted disadvantage is o(N) (Theorem 1.7); (iii) polynomial time N^{I_0+ε} when the weighted disadvantage is linear but Δ_0≫√(N/log N) (Theorem 1.8), with a matching lower bound N^{I_0−ε} when the initial camp ratio stays below a/b−κ (Theorem 1.9). The exponent I_0 = (ReLU(√(a|R_0|/N) − √(b|B_0|/N)))² is derived from the large-deviation rate function of a sparse binomial difference. The proofs combine one-step flip-ratio comparisons, Gaussian/moderate/large-deviation tail estimates for binomial differences, read-2 concentration, and a dyadic block-amplification argument built on a stopped supermartingale.

Significance. If correct (and the proofs check out on my reading), this is a solid contribution to the "power of few" literature: the first sharp analysis of majority dynamics at the connectivity scale on opinion-correlated random graphs, with matching polynomial-time upper and lower bounds. Strengths that weigh in the assessment: the exponent I_0 is derived, not fitted — it comes from the large-deviation rate of a binomial difference (Lemma A.3 via Gärtner–Ellis); the upper bound (Theorem 1.8) and lower bound (Theorem 1.9) pin down the same exponent up to the stated slack; the moderate-deviation estimate with Mills-ratio prefactor (Lemma A.5) is of independent technical interest; the read-k/Finner MGF route to the block-amplification supermartingale is clean; and numerical experiments corroborate both the constant-time transitions and the predicted exponent. The echo of the exact-recovery rate (√a−√b)² in Remark 1.10 raises the paper's interest beyond dynamics specialists.

major comments (2)
  1. [§1, Assumption 1.3; §3, Lemma 3.1, Eq. (1.11)] Assumption 1.3 (b>1) is presented as a convenience guaranteeing uniform connectivity, and §7 acknowledges it is stronger than the state-dependent threshold of Lemma H.1. But the main text never says where it is actually used. Inspection suggests the genuine entry point is Lemma 3.1: r*>0 in (1.11) is equivalent to (a+b)(b-1)>0, and the extinction step needs I(B^B_t,A^R_t)>1, while the isolated-vertex obstruction (ties preserve opinion) is only motivational. Please state explicitly which lemmas fail when b<=1; this is load-bearing for the advertised 'critical sparse regime' framing, since b>1 is precisely the connectivity scale.
  2. [§5, Theorem 1.8; Figure 1] The polynomial-time upper bound requires Δ_0≫√(N/log N), and the failure probability exp(-cΔ_0²log N/N) is Θ(1) at the boundary scale, so the band ẼΔ_0=-Θ(N) with 0<Δ_0≲√(N/log N) is left 'unexplored' in Figure 1 without even a conjecture. Is the obstruction purely the degeneration of exp(-cΔ_sθ_s) in Lemmas 5.5-5.6, or do you expect a different exponent there? Relatedly, the abstract claims unanimity within N^{I_0+o(1)} but Theorem 1.8 delivers N^{I_0+ε} for every fixed ε; please align the two statements (Remark 5.8 already explains the slack).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2, Lemma 2.4] u_t = -ẼΔ_t√(log N)/N is positive only when ẼΔ_t<0; the hypothesis ℓ≤u_t implicitly assumes this. State it explicitly.
  2. [§1.1, Remark 1.10] The coincidence I=½(√a-√b)² with the exact-recovery threshold [1,17] is striking. One sentence on whether this is structural (e.g., both governed by the same binomial-difference rate) or coincidental would be valuable.
  3. [§1.2, Figures 2-3] Captions should define H_exp = ẼΔ_0√(log N)/N inline, and note that N=10⁴ is modest given log N≈9; the visible finite-N deviations near transition points deserve a sentence.
  4. [§1, Introduction] A brief comparison to the sparse Erdős-Rényi results [20,16] would orient the reader: what do the present techniques give there, and why does the SBM require the full block-amplification machinery rather than the simpler nesting of §3?
  5. [Appendix H, Lemma H.1] Since Lemma H.1 is used only as preparation for a future extension, say so when Assumption 1.3 is introduced, not just in §7.
  6. [Abstract; headings] Typographical: 'the detailed estimates' in the abstract should be 'detailed estimates'; several headings show stray spaces ('F uture Directions', 'T echnical Lemmas', 'W eighted Self-Opinions') in the compiled PDF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: theorems are proved from sparse binomial LD/MGF estimates; I_0 is a derived rate, not a fitted or self-defined input.

full rationale

This is a self-contained probability paper. The weighted advantage Δ̃_t = b|B_t| − a|R_t| is introduced as a bookkeeping device that matches the within/across edge intensities α = a log N/N and β = b log N/N; one-step drifts and flip probabilities are then bounded by Berry–Esseen, Chernoff, and moderate-deviation analysis of Bin(s,β)−Bin(r,α) (Appendix A), and the polynomial exponent I_0 is exactly the large-deviation rate I(a|R_0|/N, b|B_0|/N) of the red-to-blue flip. Upper and lower bounds (Theorems 1.8–1.9) are proved by block amplification and flip counting under that rate, not by fitting parameters to data or by importing an author-unique theorem that forces the conclusion. Remark 1.10’s coincidence with the community-detection exact-recovery exponent is an a-posteriori observation, not an input. Citations (Abbe–Bandeira–Hall, Mossel–Tamuz, etc.) are standard external background. No prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper works entirely inside classical probability on sparse random graphs. Load-bearing inputs are the sparse assortative SBM law, the synchronous majority update with tie-stay, the uniform connectivity condition b>1, and standard concentration/tail tools (Berry–Esseen, Chernoff, Gärtner–Ellis, read-k Chernoff). No free parameters are fitted to external data; a,b,H,K,r,κ,ε are fixed constants in theorem hypotheses. The weighted advantage and rate I(x,y) are definitions, not postulated physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Sparse assortative SBM: α=a log N/N, eta=b log N/N with fixed a>b>0 (Assumption 1.2).
    Defines the edge law conditional on the current opinion partition; without it the weighted advantage is meaningless.
  • domain assumption Connectivity: b>1 so every resampled graph is connected whp uniformly over partitions (Assumption 1.3).
    Rules out isolated vertices that would permanently block unanimity; stronger than the partition-dependent threshold of Lemma H.1.
  • domain assumption Synchronous majority update with tie-breaking by retaining current opinion (rule (1.3)).
    Standard majority-dynamics convention; changes would alter flip probabilities p^B_t, p^R_t.
  • standard math Berry–Esseen, Chernoff, Gärtner–Ellis left-tail, and read-k Chernoff bounds (Appendices A–B, Lemmas I.3–I.4, B.2).
    Off-the-shelf concentration and LD tools used to control one-vertex flip tails and aggregate camp-size fluctuations.
  • domain assumption Initial blue unweighted advantage Δ_0>0 (standing orientation; Remark 1.4).
    Fixes which color is tracked; symmetric statements hold after color swap.
invented entities (2)
  • Weighted advantage Δ̃_t = b|B_t| − a|R_t| independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar that correctly predicts drift direction and time scale under unequal within/across edge probabilities.
    Definitional bookkeeping device derived from expected degree differences; not a new physical object. independent_evidence is false only in the sense that it is internal notation, but it is falsifiable via the stated theorems.
  • Rate function I(x,y)=(ReLU(√x−√y))^2 and I_t = I(a|R_t|/N, b|B_t|/N) independent evidence
    purpose: Large-deviation exponent for red-to-blue flip probability and polynomial time scale.
    Standard LD rate for sparse binomial differences; coincides with known community-detection exponents but is re-derived here from first principles for the dynamics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Majority Dynamics on Assortative Sparse Stochastic Block Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2JGIWXPU

@misc{pith2026260724652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Majority Dynamics on Assortative Sparse Stochastic Block Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2JGIWXPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24652}
}
abstract

Majority dynamics is a two-opinion process in which each vertex repeatedly updates to the majority opinion among its neighbors. We study this process on a resampled sparse binary stochastic block model in the assortative regime. At each time step, a graph is sampled from the current opinion partition: vertices with the same opinion are joined with probability $\alpha=a\log N/N$, while vertices with differing opinions are joined with probability $\beta=b\log N/N$, where $a>b>1$. Let $B_t$ and $R_t$ denote the blue and red camps at time $t$. We show that the weighted advantage $\widetilde{\Delta}_t =b|B_t|-a|R_t|$, rather than the unweighted advantage $\Delta_t=|B_t|-|R_t|$ alone, governs the pace to unanimity. Our results, which hold with high probability as \(N\to\infty\), identify three regimes for blue unanimity under the initial blue advantage, i.e., $\Delta_0>0$: constant time, subpolynomial time, and polynomial time. First, when $\widetilde{\Delta}_0 \gtrsim -N/\sqrt{\log N}$, blue unanimity occurs within three updates. Second, when $\widetilde{\Delta}_0 < 0$ and $|\widetilde{\Delta}_0| = o(N)$, blue unanimity occurs within $N^{o(1)}$ updates. Furthermore, when $\widetilde{\Delta}_0 < 0$, $|\widetilde{\Delta}_0| = O(N)$, and $\Delta_0\gg\sqrt{N/\log N}$, blue unanimity still occurs within $N^{I_0+o(1)}$ updates, where \[ I_0= \left(\mathbf{ReLU}\Big(\sqrt{a\frac{|R_0|}{N}}-\sqrt{b\frac{|B_0|}{N}}\Big)\right)^2, \] and $\mathbf{ReLU}(x)=\max\{x,0\}$. Conversely, away from the weighted threshold, when $|B_0|/|R_0|\le a/b-\kappa$ and $\Delta_0>0$, $N^{I_0 - o(1)}$ updates are necessary for blue unanimity. Our analysis relies on detailed estimates for one-vertex flip probabilities in sparse binomial differences, which could be of independent interest.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24652 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic phase diagram summarizing the main results. The lengths of the regimes are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. We take N = 104 , b = 2, and vary a ∈ {2.2, 3, 8}. We parametrize the initial condition by Hexp := ∆e 0 √ log N /N, labeled H in the panels. Thus Hexp = −H on the boundary ∆e 0 = −HN/√ log N in Theorem 1.6(i). The first two panels report the estimated probabilities of blue unanimity by t = 2 and t = 3, respectively; the third reports the median τB. Polynomial-Time Exponent. The polynomial-time convergence exponent p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We take N = 104 , (a, b) ∈ {(8, 2),(9, 3)}, and vary the initial camp ratio ρ0. The left panel compares the median empirical exponent log τB/ log N with I0 and includes the 10%–90% quantile interval. The right panel plots the median trajectories of |Rt |. 1.3 Notation All asymptotic statements are taken as N → ∞, and all logarithms are natural. We write [N] = {1, . . . , N}, use 1{E} for the indicator of an event E,… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Majority Dynamics on Resampled Sparse Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi Graphs: Gaussian Winner Selection and Pace to Unanimity

    math.PR 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For majority dynamics on resampled sparse Erdős-Rényi graphs, the first update performs a Gaussian coin flip that decides the winner, and unanimity follows within (1+o(1)) log N / log log N rounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Exact recovery in the stochastic block model

    Emmanuel Abbe, Afonso S Bandeira, and Georgina Hall. “Exact recovery in the stochastic block model”. In:IEEE Transactions on Information Theory62.1 (2016), pp. 471–487.doi: 10.1109/TIT.2015.2490670(cit. on p. 7)

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Anℓ p theory of PCA and spectral clustering

    Emmanuel Abbe, Jianqing Fan, and Kaizheng Wang. “Anℓ p theory of PCA and spectral clustering”. In:The Annals of Statistics50.4 (2022), pp. 2359–2385.doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1214/22-AOS2196(cit. on p. 54)

    work page doi:10.1214/22-aos2196(cit 2022

  3. [3]

    Entrywise eigenvector analysis of random matrices with low expected rank

    Emmanuel Abbe, Jianqing Fan, Kaizheng Wang, and Yiqiao Zhong. “Entrywise eigenvector analysis of random matrices with low expected rank”. In:The Annals of Statistics48.3 (2020), pp. 1452–1474.doi:https://doi.org/10.1214/19-AOS1854(cit. on p. 7)

    work page doi:10.1214/19-aos1854(cit 2020

  4. [4]

    Conver- gence, unanimity and disagreement in majority dynamics on unimodular graphs and random graphs

    Itai Benjamini, Siu-On Chan, Ryan O’Donnell, Omer Tamuz, and Li-Yang Tan. “Conver- gence, unanimity and disagreement in majority dynamics on unimodular graphs and random graphs”. In:Stochastic Processes and their Applications126.9 (2016), pp. 2719–2733 (cit. on p. 3). 54

    2016

  5. [5]

    Central limit theorem for majority dynamics: Bribing three voters suffices

    Ross Berkowitz and Pat Devlin. “Central limit theorem for majority dynamics: Bribing three voters suffices”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08172(2020) (cit. on p. 3)

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Majority dynam- ics on sparse random graphs

    Debsoumya Chakraborti, Jeong Han Kim, Joonkyung Lee, and Tuan Tran. “Majority dynam- ics on sparse random graphs”. In:Random Structures & Algorithms63.1 (2023), pp. 171–191 (cit. on p. 3)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Spectral analysis of random graphs with skewed degree distributions

    A. Dasgupta, J.E. Hopcroft, and F. McSherry. “Spectral analysis of random graphs with skewed degree distributions”. In:45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 2004, pp. 602–610.doi:10.1109/FOCS.2004.61(cit. on p. 22)

    work page doi:10.1109/focs.2004.61(cit 2004

  8. [8]

    A moment inequality with an application to the central limit theorem

    Carl-Gustav Esseen. “A moment inequality with an application to the central limit theorem”. In:Scandinavian Actuarial Journal1956.2 (1956), pp. 160–170.doi:10.1080/03461238. 1956.10414946.url:https://doi.org/10.1080/03461238.1956.10414946(cit. on p. 53)

    arXiv 1956

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    A Generalization of H¨ older’s Inequality and Some Probability Inequalities

    Helmut Finner. “A Generalization of H¨ older’s Inequality and Some Probability Inequalities”. In:The Annals of Probability20.4 (1992), pp. 1893–1901.doi:10.1214/aop/1176989534 (cit. on p. 54)

    1992

  2. [10]

    Resolution of a conjecture on majority dynamics: Rapid stabilization in dense random graphs

    Nikolaos Fountoulakis, Mihyun Kang, and Tam´ as Makai. “Resolution of a conjecture on majority dynamics: Rapid stabilization in dense random graphs”. In:Random Structures & Algorithms57.4 (2020), pp. 1134–1156 (cit. on p. 3)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Community detection in degree-corrected block models

    Chao Gao, Zongming Ma, Anderson Y. Zhang, and Harrison H. Zhou. “Community detection in degree-corrected block models”. In:The Annals of Statistics46.5 (2018), pp. 2153 –2185. doi:10.1214/17-AOS1615.url:https://doi.org/10.1214/17-AOS1615(cit. on p. 22)

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Exact Recovery in the Geometric SBM

    Julia Gaudio and Andrew Jin. “Exact Recovery in the Geometric SBM”. In: (2025). arXiv: 2512.22773 [math.PR].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22773(cit. on p. 22)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Exact community recovery in the geometric sbm

    Julia Gaudio, Xiaochun Niu, and Ermin Wei. “Exact community recovery in the geometric sbm”. In:Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). SIAM. 2024, pp. 2158–2184 (cit. on p. 22)

    2024

  6. [14]

    A Tail Bound for Read-kFamilies of Functions

    Dmitry Gavinsky, Shachar Lovett, Michael E. Saks, and Srikanth Srinivasan. “A Tail Bound for Read-kFamilies of Functions”. In:Random Structures & Algorithms47.1 (2015), pp. 99 –108.doi:10.1002/rsa.20532.url:https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.20532(cit. on p. 33)

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    A new bound in Majority Dynamics on Random Graphs

    Sean Jaffe. “A new bound in Majority Dynamics on Random Graphs”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14401(2025) (cit. on p. 3)

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A new density limit for unanimity in majority dynamics on random graphs

    Jeong Han Kim and BaoLinh Tran. “A new density limit for unanimity in majority dynamics on random graphs”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07447(2025) (cit. on p. 3)

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Consistency thresholds for the planted bisec- tion model

    Elchanan Mossel, Joe Neeman, and Allan Sly. “Consistency thresholds for the planted bisec- tion model”. In:Electronic Journal of Probability21.none (2016), pp. 1 –24.doi:10.1214/16- EJP4185.url:https://doi.org/10.1214/16-EJP4185(cit. on p. 7)

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Opinion exchange dynamics

    Elchanan Mossel and Omer Tamuz. “Opinion exchange dynamics”. In:Probability Surveys 14 (2017), pp. 155–204 (cit. on p. 3)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Majority dynamics: The power of one

    Ashwin Sah and Mehtaab Sawhney. “Majority dynamics: The power of one”. In:Israel Journal of Mathematics(2024), pp. 1–49 (cit. on p. 3)

    2024

  12. [20]

    The “Power of Few

    BaoLinh Tran and Van Vu. “The “Power of Few” Phenomenon: The Sparse Case”. In:Random Structures & Algorithms66.1 (2025), e21260 (cit. on p. 3). 55

    2025

  13. [21]

    Reaching a Consensus on Random Networks: The Power of Few

    Linh Tran and Van Vu. “Reaching a Consensus on Random Networks: The Power of Few”. In:Theory of Computing19.6 (2023), pp. 1–21.doi:10.4086/toc.2023.v019a006.url: https://theoryofcomputing.org/articles/v019a006(cit. on p. 3)

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    New estimates of the convergence rate in the Lyapunov theorem

    Ilya Tyurin. “New estimates of the convergence rate in the Lyapunov theorem”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.0726(2009) (cit. on p. 53)

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics

    Roman Vershynin.High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2018 (cit. on p. 53)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Consensus on dynamic stochastic block models: Fast convergence and phase transitions

    Haoyu Wang, Jiaheng Wei, and Zhenyuan Zhang. “Consensus on dynamic stochastic block models: Fast convergence and phase transitions”. In:arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03999(2022) (cit. on p. 3)

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Opinion forming in Erd˝ os–R´ enyi random graph and expanders

    Ahad N Zehmakan. “Opinion forming in Erd˝ os–R´ enyi random graph and expanders”. In: Discrete Applied Mathematics277 (2020), pp. 280–290 (cit. on p. 3)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Minimax rates of community detection in stochas- tic block models

    Anderson Y. Zhang and Harrison H. Zhou. “Minimax rates of community detection in stochas- tic block models”. In:The Annals of Statistics44.5 (2016), pp. 2252 –2280.doi:10.1214/15- AOS1428.url:https://doi.org/10.1214/15-AOS1428(cit. on p. 7). 56

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.