We provide recovery guarantees for compressible signals that have been corrupted with noise and extend the framework introduced in [1] to defend neural networks against @math -norm and @math -norm attacks. Concretely, for a signal that is approximately sparse in some transform domain and has been perturbed with noise, we provide guarantees for accurately recovering the signal in the transform domain. We can then use the recovered signal to reconstruct the signal in its original domain while largely removing the noise. Our results are general as they can be directly applied to most unitary transforms used in practice and hold for both @math -norm bounded noise and @math -norm bounded noise. In the case of @math -norm bounded noise, we prove recovery guarantees for Iterative Hard Thresholding (IHT) and Basis Pursuit (BP). For the case of @math -norm bounded noise, we provide recovery guarantees for BP. These guarantees theoretically bolster the defense framework introduced in [1] for defending neural networks against adversarial inputs. Finally, we experimentally demonstrate this defense framework using both IHT and BP against the One Pixel Attack [21], Carlini-Wagner @math and @math attacks [3], Jacobian Saliency Based attack [18], and the DeepFool attack [17] on CIFAR-10 [12], MNIST [13], and Fashion-MNIST [27] datasets. This expands beyond the experimental demonstrations of [1].
The authors of @cite_0 introduced the CRD framework which inspired this work. The main theorem (Theorem 2.2) of @cite_0 is an analog of our Theorem and provides a similar bound the approximation error for recovery via IHT. First note that the statement of the Theorem 2.2 of @cite_0 is missing the required hypothesis @math . This hypothesis appears in Lemma 3.6 of @cite_0 , which is used to prove Theorem 2.2, but it appears to have been accidentally dropped from the statement of Theorem 2.2. We note that, by making the constants explicit, the proof of Lemma 3.6 of @cite_0 gives the same restricted isometry property that we do in Theorem . Therefore, the guarantees we obtain for IHT are essentially the same as in @cite_0 . The main difference is that, to derive recovery guarantees for IHT from the restricted isometry property, we utilize Theorem below (which is a modified version of Theorem 6.18 of @cite_15 ) while the authors of @cite_0 utilize Theorem 3.4 in @cite_0 (which is taken from @cite_19 ).
@cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_15
2890343472 143004564
I Functional on Stochastic Processes.- 1. Stochastic Processes as Random Functions.- Notes.- Problems.- II Uniform Convergence of Empirical Measures.- 1. Uniformity and Consistency.- 2. Direct Approximation.- 3. The Combinatorial Method.- 4. Classes of Sets with Polynomial Discrimination.- 5. Classes of Functions.- 6. Rates of Convergence.- Notes.- Problems.- III Convergence in Distribution in Euclidean Spaces.- 1. The Definition.- 2. The Continuous Mapping Theorem.- 3. Expectations of Smooth Functions.- 4. The Central Limit Theorem.- 5. Characteristic Functions.- 6. Quantile Transformations and Almost Sure Representations.- Notes.- Problems.- IV Convergence in Distribution in Metric Spaces.- 1. Measurability.- 2. The Continuous Mapping Theorem.- 3. Representation by Almost Surely Convergent Sequences.- 4. Coupling.- 5. Weakly Convergent Subsequences.- Notes.- Problems.- V The Uniform Metric on Spaces of Cadlag Functions.- 1. Approximation of Stochastic Processes.- 2. Empirical Processes.- 3. Existence of Brownian Bridge and Brownian Motion.- 4. Processes with Independent Increments.- 5. Infinite Time Scales.- 6. Functional of Brownian Motion and Brownian Bridge.- Notes.- Problems.- VI The Skorohod Metric on D(0, ?).- 1. Properties of the Metric.- 2. Convergence in Distribution.- Notes.- Problems.- VII Central Limit Theorems.- 1. Stochastic Equicontinuity.- 2. Chaining.- 3. Gaussian Processes.- 4. Random Covering Numbers.- 5. Empirical Central Limit Theorems.- 6. Restricted Chaining.- Notes.- Problems.- VIII Martingales.- 1. A Central Limit Theorem for Martingale-Difference Arrays.- 2. Continuous Time Martingales.- 3. Estimation from Censored Data.- Notes.- Problems.- Appendix A Stochastic-Order Symbols.- Appendix B Exponential Inequalities.- Notes.- Problems.- Appendix C Measurability.- Notes.- Problems.- References.- Author Index. 1 Preliminaries.- 1.1 Introduction.- 1.2 Measures and Functions.- 1.3 Weak Topologies.- 1.4 Convergence of Measures.- 1.5 Complements.- 1.6 Notes.- I Markov Chains and Ergodicity.- 2 Markov Chains and Ergodic Theorems.- 2.1 Introduction.- 2.2 Basic Notation and Definitions.- 2.3 Ergodic Theorems.- 2.4 The Ergodicity Property.- 2.5 Pathwise Results.- 2.6 Notes.- 3 Countable Markov Chains.- 3.1 Introduction.- 3.2 Classification of States and Class Properties.- 3.3 Limit Theorems.- 3.4 Notes.- 4 Harris Markov Chains.- 4.1 Introduction.- 4.2 Basic Definitions and Properties.- 4.3 Characterization of Harris recurrence.- 4.4 Sufficient Conditions for P.H.R.- 4.5 Harris and Doeblin Decompositions.- 4.6 Notes.- 5 Markov Chains in Metric Spaces.- 5.1 Introduction.- 5.2 The Limit in Ergodic Theorems.- 5.3 Yosida's Ergodic Decomposition.- 5.4 Pathwise Results.- 5.5 Proofs.- 5.6 Notes.- 6 Classification of Markov Chains via Occupation Measures.- 6.1 Introduction.- 6.2 A Classification.- 6.3 On the Birkhoff Individual Ergodic Theorem.- 6.4 Notes.- II Further Ergodicity Properties.- 7 Feller Markov Chains.- 7.1 Introduction.- 7.2 Weak-and Strong-Feller Markov Chains.- 7.3 Quasi Feller Chains.- 7.4 Notes.- 8 The Poisson Equation.- 8.1 Introduction.- 8.2 The Poisson Equation.- 8.3 Canonical Pairs.- 8.4 The Cesaro-Averages Approach.- 8.5 The Abelian Approach.- 8.6 Notes.- 9 Strong and Uniform Ergodicity.- 9.1 Introduction.- 9.2 Strong and Uniform Ergodicity.- 9.3 Weak and Weak Uniform Ergodicity.- 9.4 Notes.- III Existence and Approximation of Invariant Probability Measures.- 10 Existence of Invariant Probability Measures.- 10.1 Introduction and Statement of the Problems.- 10.2 Notation and Definitions.- 10.3 Existence Results.- 10.4 Markov Chains in Locally Compact Separable Metric Spaces.- 10.5 Other Existence Results in Locally Compact Separable Metric Spaces.- 10.6 Technical Preliminaries.- 10.7 Proofs.- 10.8 Notes.- 11 Existence and Uniqueness of Fixed Points for Markov Operators.- 11.1 Introduction and Statement of the Problems.- 11.2 Notation and Definitions.- 11.3 Existence Results.- 11.4 Proofs.- 11.5 Notes.- 12 Approximation Procedures for Invariant Probability Measures.- 12.1 Introduction.- 12.2 Statement of the Problem and Preliminaries.- 12.3 An Approximation Scheme.- 12.4 A Moment Approach for a Special Class of Markov Chains.- 12.5 Notes. For more than three and one-half decades, beginning in the early 1960s, a heavy emphasis on proof finding has been a key component of the Argonne paradigm, whose use has directly led to significant advances in automated reasoning and important contributions to mathematics and logic. The theorems studied range from the trivial to the deep, even including some that corresponded to open questions. Often the paradigm asks for a theorem whose proof is in hand but that cannot be obtained in a fully automated manner by the program in use. The theorem whose hypothesis consists solely of the Meredith single axiom for two-valued sentential (or propositional) calculus and whose conclusion is the Lukasiewicz three-axiom system for that area of formal logic was just such a theorem. Featured in this article is the methodology that enabled the program OTTER to find the first fully automated proof of the cited theorem, a proof with the intriguing property that none of its steps contains a term of the form i>n(i>n(i>t)) for any term i>t. As evidence of the power of the new methodology, the article also discusses OTTER's success in obtaining the first known proof of a theorem concerning a single axiom of Lukasiewicz. 0. Background Notes.- 1. Continuous Partitions of Unity.- 2. Absolutely Continuous Functions.- 3. Some Compactness Theorems.- 4. Weak Convergence and Asymptotic Center of Bounded Sequences.- 5. Closed Convex Hulls and the Mean-Value Theorem.- 6. Lower Semicontinuous Convex Functions and Projections of Best Approximation.- 7. A Concise Introduction to Convex Analysis.- 1. Set-Valued Maps.- 1. Set-Valued Maps and Continuity Concepts.- 2. Examples of Set-Valued Maps.- 3. Continuity Properties of Maps with Closed Convex Graph.- 4. Upper Hemicontinuous Maps and the Convergence Theorem.- 5. Hausdorff Topology.- 6. The Selection Problem.- 7. The Minimal Selection.- 8. Chebishev Selection.- 9. The Barycentric Selection.- 10. Selection Theorems for Locally Selectionable Maps.- 11. Michael's Selection Theorem.- 12. The Approximate Selection Theorem and Kakutani's Fixed Point Theorem.- 13. (7-Selectionable Maps.- 14. Measurable Selections.- 2. Existence of Solutions to Differential Inclusions.- 1. Convex Valued Differential Inclusions.- 2. Qualitative Properties of the Set of Trajectories of Convex-Valued Differential Inclusions.- 3. Nonconvex-Valued Differential Inclusions.- 4. Differential Inclusions with Lipschitzean Maps and the Relaxation Theorem.- 5. The Fixed-Point Approach.- 6. The Lower Semicontinuous Case.- 3. Differential Inclusions with Maximal Monotone Maps.- 1. Maximal Monotone Maps.- 2. Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions to Differential Inclusions with Maximal Monotone Maps.- 3. Asymptotic Behavior of Trajectories and the Ergodic Theorem.- 4. Gradient Inclusions.- 5. Application: Gradient Methods for Constrained Minimization Problems.- 4. Viability Theory: The Nonconvex Case.- 1. Bouligand's Contingent Cone.- 2. Viable and Monotone Trajectories.- 3. Contingent Derivative of a Set-Valued Map.- 4. The Time Dependent Case.- 5. A Continuous Version of Newton's Method.- 6. A Viability Theorem for Continuous Maps with Nonconvex Images..- 7. Differential Inclusions with Memory.- 5. Viability Theory and Regulation of Controled Systems: The Convex Case.- 1. Tangent Cones and Normal Cones to Convex Sets.- 2. Viability Implies the Existence of an Equilibrium.- 3. Viability Implies the Existence of Periodic Trajectories.- 4. Regulation of Controled Systems Through Viability.- 5. Walras Equilibria and Dynamical Price Decentralization.- 6. Differential Variational Inequalities.- 7. Rate Equations and Inclusions.- 6. Liapunov Functions.- 1. Upper Contingent Derivative of a Real-Valued Function.- 2. Liapunov Functions and Existence of Equilibria.- 3. Monotone Trajectories of a Differential Inclusion.- 4. Construction of Liapunov Functions.- 5. Stability and Asymptotic Behavior of Trajectories.- Comments. 1.1. Introduction.- 1.2. Outer Integrals and Measurable Majorants.- 1.3. Weak Convergence.- 1.4. Product Spaces.- 1.5. Spaces of Bounded Functions.- 1.6. Spaces of Locally Bounded Functions.- 1.7. The Ball Sigma-Field and Measurability of Suprema.- 1.8. Hilbert Spaces.- 1.9. Convergence: Almost Surely and in Probability.- 1.10. Convergence: Weak, Almost Uniform, and in Probability.- 1.11. Refinements.- 1.12. Uniformity and Metrization.- 2.1. Introduction.- 2.2. Maximal Inequalities and Covering Numbers.- 2.3. Symmetrization and Measurability.- 2.4. Glivenko-Cantelli Theorems.- 2.5. Donsker Theorems.- 2.6. Uniform Entropy Numbers.- 2.7. Bracketing Numbers.- 2.8. Uniformity in the Underlying Distribution.- 2.9. Multiplier Central Limit Theorems.- 2.10. Permanence of the Donsker Property.- 2.11. The Central Limit Theorem for Processes.- 2.12. Partial-Sum Processes.- 2.13. Other Donsker Classes.- 2.14. Tail Bounds.- 3.1. Introduction.- 3.2. M-Estimators.- 3.3. Z-Estimators.- 3.4. Rates of Convergence.- 3.5. Random Sample Size, Poissonization and Kac Processes.- 3.6. The Bootstrap.- 3.7. The Two-Sample Problem.- 3.8. Independence Empirical Processes.- 3.9. The Delta-Method.- 3.10. Contiguity.- 3.11. Convolution and Minimax Theorems.- A. Appendix.- A.1. Inequalities.- A.2. Gaussian Processes.- A.2.1. Inequalities and Gaussian Comparison.- A.2.2. Exponential Bounds.- A.2.3. Majorizing Measures.- A.2.4. Further Results.- A.3. Rademacher Processes.- A.4. Isoperimetric Inequalities for Product Measures.- A.5. Some Limit Theorems.- A.6. More Inequalities.- A.6.1. Binomial Random Variables.- A.6.2. Multinomial Random Vectors.- A.6.3. Rademacher Sums.- Notes.- References.- Author Index.- List of Symbols. Notation Prologue Chapter I. Lattices 1. Introduction 2. Bases and sublattices 3. Lattices under linear transformation 4. Forms and lattices 5. The polar lattice Chapter II. Reduction 1. Introduction 2. The basic process 3. Definite quadratic forms 4. Indefinite quadratic forms 5. Binary cubic forms 6. Other forms Chapter III. Theorems of Blichfeldt and Minkowski 1. Introduction 2. Blichfeldt's and Mnowski's theorems 3. Generalisations to non-negative functions 4. Characterisation of lattices 5. Lattice constants 6. A method of Mordell 7. Representation of integers by quadratic forms Chapter IV. Distance functions 1. Introduction 2. General distance-functions 3. Convex sets 4. Distance functions and lattices Chapter V. Mahler's compactness theorem 1. Introduction 2. Linear transformations 3. Convergence of lattices 4. Compactness for lattices 5. Critical lattices 6. Bounded star-bodies 7. Reducibility 8. Convex bodies 9. Speres 10. Applications to diophantine approximation Chapter VI. The theorem of Minkowski-Hlawka 1. Introduction 2. Sublattices of prime index 3. The Minkowski-Hlawka theorem 4. Schmidt's theorems 5. A conjecture of Rogers 6. Unbounded star-bodies Chapter VII. The quotient space 1. Introduction 2. General properties 3. The sum theorem Chapter VIII. Successive minima 1. Introduction 2. Spheres 3. General distance-functions Chapter IX. Packings 1. Introduction 2. Sets with V( varphi) =n^2 Delta( varphi) 3. Voronoi's results 4. Preparatory lemmas 5. Fejes Toth's theorem 6. Cylinders 7. Packing of spheres 8. The proudctio of n linear forms Chapter X. Automorphs 1. Introduction 2. Special forms 3. A method of Mordell 4. Existence of automorphs 5. Isolation theorems 6. Applications of isolation 7. An infinity of solutions 8. Local methods Chapter XI. Ihomogeneous problems 1. Introduction 2. Convex sets 3. Transference theorems for convex sets 4. The producti of n linear forms Appendix References Index quotient space. successive minima. Packings. Automorphs. Inhomogeneous problems. We consider monotone embeddings of a finite metric space into low-dimensional normed space. That is, embeddings that respect the order among the distances in the original space. Our main interest is in embeddings into Euclidean spaces. We observe that any metric on n points can be embedded into l2n, while (in a sense to be made precise later), for almost every n-point metric space, every monotone map must be into a space of dimension Ω(n) (Lemma 3).It becomes natural, then, to seek explicit constructions of metric spaces that cannot be monotonically embedded into spaces of sublinear dimension. To this end, we employ known results on sphericity of graphs, which suggest one example of such a metric space--that is defined by a complete bipartite graph. We prove that an δn-regular graph of order n, with bounded diameter has sphericity Ω(n (λ2+1)), where λ2 is the second largest eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix of the graph, and 0<δ≤½ is constant (Theorem 4). We also show that while random graphs have linear sphericity, there are quais-random graphs of logarithmic sphericity (Lemma 7).For the above bound to be linear, λ2 must be constant. We show that if the second eigenvalue of an n 2-regular graph is bounded by a constant, then the graph is close to being complete bipartite. Namely, its adjacency matrix differs from that of a complete bipartite graph in only o(n2) entries (Theorem 5). Furthermore, for any 0<δ<½, and λ2, there are only finitely many δn-regular graphs with second eigenvalue at most λ2 (Corollary 4). Two central limit theorems for sample Fr 'echet means are derived, both significant for nonparametric inference on non-Euclidean spaces. The first one, Theorem 2.2, encompasses and improves upon most earlier CLTs on Fr 'echet means and broadens the scope of the methodology beyond manifolds to diverse new non-Euclidean data including those on certain stratified spaces which are important in the study of phylogenetic trees. It does not require that the underlying distribution @math have a density, and applies to both intrinsic and extrinsic analysis. The second theorem, Theorem 3.3, focuses on intrinsic means on Riemannian manifolds of dimensions @math and breaks new ground by providing a broad CLT without any of the earlier restrictive support assumptions. It makes the statistically reasonable assumption of a somewhat smooth density of @math . The excluded case of dimension @math proves to be an enigma, although the first theorem does provide a CLT in this case as well under a support restriction. Theorem 3.3 immediately applies to spheres @math , @math , which are also of considerable importance in applications to axial spaces and to landmarks based image analysis, as these spaces are quotients of spheres under a Lie group @math of isometries of @math . Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . Let (H_V = - d^ 2 dt^ 2 + q(t, ) ) be an one-dimensional random Schrodinger operator in ℒ2(−V,V) with the classical boundary conditions. The random potentialq(t, ω) has a formq(t, ω)=F(x t ), wherex t is a Brownian motion on the compact Riemannian manifoldK andF:K→R1 is a smooth Morse function, ( F = 0 ). Let (N_V ( ) = Ei(V) 1 ), where Δ∈(0, ∞),E i (V) are the eigenvalues ofH V . The main result (Theorem 1) of this paper is the following. IfV→∞,E0>0,k∈Z+ anda>0 (a is a fixed constant) then @math wheren(E0) is a limit state density ofH V ,V→∞. This theorem mean that there is no repulsion between energy levels of the operatorH V ,V→∞. NNScore is a neural-network-based scoring function designed to aid the computational identification of small-molecule ligands. While the test cases included in the original NNScore article demonstrated the utility of the program, the application examples were limited. The purpose of the current work is to further confirm that neural-network scoring functions are effective, even when compared to the scoring functions of state-of-the-art docking programs, such as AutoDock, the most commonly cited program, and AutoDock Vina, thought to be two orders of magnitude faster. Aside from providing additional validation of the original NNScore function, we here present a second neural-network scoring function, NNScore 2.0. NNScore 2.0 considers many more binding characteristics when predicting affinity than does the original NNScore. The network output of NNScore 2.0 also differs from that of NNScore 1.0; rather than a binary classification of ligand potency, NNScore 2.0 provides a single estimate of the pKd. To fac... A set family F is said to be t-intersecting if any two sets in F share at least t elements. The Complete Intersection Theorem of Ahlswede and Khachatrian (1997) determines the maximal size f(n,k,t) of a t-intersecting family of k-element subsets of 1,2,...,n , and gives a full characterisation of the extremal families. In this paper, we prove the following stability version' of the theorem: if k n is bounded away from 0 and 1 2, and F is a t-intersecting family of k-element subsets of 1,2,...,n such that @math , then there exists an extremal family G such that @math . For fixed t, this assertion is tight up to a constant factor. This proves a conjecture of Friedgut from 2008. Our proof combines classical shifting arguments with a bootstrapping' method based upon an isoperimetric argument. A directed multigraph is said to be d-regular if the indegree and outdegree of every vertex is exactly d. By Hall's theorem, one can represent such a multigraph as a combination of at most n2 cycle covers, each taken with an appropriate multiplicity. We prove that if the d-regular multigraph does not contain more than ⌊d 2⌋ copies of any 2-cycle then we can find a similar decomposition into n2 pairs of cycle covers where each 2-cycle occurs in at most one component of each pair. Our proof is constructive and gives a polynomial algorithm to find such a decomposition. Since our applications only need one such a pair of cycle covers whose weight is at least the average weight of all pairs, we also give an alternative, simpler algorithm to extract a single such pair.This combinatorial theorem then comes handy in rounding a fractional solution of an LP relaxation of the maximum Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) problem. The first stage of the rounding procedure obtains two cycle covers that do not share a 2-cycle with weight at least twice the weight of the optimal solution. Then we show how to extract a tour from the 2 cycle covers, whose weight is at least 2 3 of the weight of the longest tour. This improves upon the previous 5 8 approximation with a simpler algorithm. Utilizing a reduction from maximum TSP to the shortest superstring problem, we obtain a 2.5-approximation algorithm for the latter problem, which is again much simpler than the previous one.For minimum asymmetric TSP, the same technique gives two cycle covers, not sharing a 2-cycle, with weight at most twice the weight of the optimum. Assuming triangle inequality, we then show how to obtain from this pair of cycle covers a tour whose weight is at most 0.842 log 2 n larger than optimal. This improves upon a previous approximation algorithm with approximation guarantee of 0.999 log 2 n. Other applications of the rounding procedure are approximation algorithms for maximum 3-cycle cover (factor 2 3, previously 3 5) and maximum asymmetric TSP with triangle inequality (factor 10 13, previously 3 4). The sum of finitely many variates possesses, under familiar conditions, an almost Gaussian probability distribution. This already much discussed "central limit theorem"(x) in the theory of probability is the object of further investigation in the present paper. The cases of Liapounoff(2), Lindeberg(3), and Feller(4) will be reviewed. Numerical estimates for the degrees of approximation attained in these cases will be presented in the three theorems of §4. Theorem 3, the arithmetical refinement of the general theorem of Feller, constitutes our principal result. As the foregoing implies, we require throughout the paper that the given variates be totally independent. And we consider only one-dimensional variates. The first three sections of the paper are devoted to the preparatory Theorem 1 in which the variates.meet the further condition of possessing finite third order absolute moments. Let X , Xi, • • • , Xn be the given variates. For each k k = ,2, ■ ■ ■ , n) let ^(Xk) and ixs Xk) denote, respectively, the second and third order absolute moments of Xk about its mean (expected) value a*. These moments are either both zero or both positive. The former case arises only when Xk is essentially constant, i.e., differs from its mean value at most in cases of total probability zero. To avoid trivialities we suppose that PziXk) >0 for at least one k (k = 1, 2, • • • , n). The non-negative square root of m Xk) is the standard deviation of Xk and will be denoted by ak. We call In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. In this article, we show several results obtained by combining the use of stable distributions with pseudorandom generators for bounded space. In particular:---We show that, for any p ∈ (0, 2], one can maintain (using only O(log n e2) words of storage) a sketch C(q) of a point q ∈ lnp under dynamic updates of its coordinates. The sketch has the property that, given C(q) and C(s), one can estimate Vq − sVp up to a factor of (1 p e) with large probability. This solves the main open problem of [1999].---We show that the aforementioned sketching approach directly translates into an approximate algorithm that, for a fixed linear mapping A, and given x ∈ ℜn and y ∈ ℜm, estimates VAx − yVp in O(n p m) time, for any p ∈ (0, 2]. This generalizes an earlier algorithm of Wasserman and Blum [1997] which worked for the case p e 2.---We obtain another sketch function C′ which probabilistically embeds ln1 into a normed space lm1. The embedding guarantees that, if we set m e log(1 Δ)O(1 e), then for any pair of points q, s ∈ ln1, the distance between q and s does not increase by more than (1 p e) with constant probability, and it does not decrease by more than (1 − e) with probability 1 − Δ. This is the only known dimensionality reduction theorem for the l1 norm. In fact, stronger theorems of this type (i.e., that guarantee very low probability of expansion as well as of contraction) cannot exist [Brinkman and Charikar 2003].---We give an explicit embedding of ln2 into lnO(log n)1 with distortion (1 p 1 nΘ(1)). A spanner is a sparse subgraph that approximately preserves the pairwise distances of the original graph. It is well known that there is a smooth tradeoff between the sparsity of a spanner and the quality of its approximation, so long as distance error is measured multiplicatively. A central open question in the field is to prove or disprove whether such a tradeoff exists also in the regime of additive error. That is, is it true that for all e>0, there is a constant ke such that every graph has a spanner on O(n1+e) edges that preserves its pairwise distances up to +ke? Previous lower bounds are consistent with a positive resolution to this question, while previous upper bounds exhibit the beginning of a tradeoff curve: all graphs have +2 spanners on O(n3 2) edges, +4 spanners on O(n7 5) edges, and +6 spanners on O(n4 3) edges. However, progress has mysteriously halted at the n4 3 bound, and despite significant effort from the community, the question has remained open for all 0 Our main result is a surprising negative resolution of the open question, even in a highly generalized setting. We show a new information theoretic incompressibility bound: there is no function that compresses graphs into O(n4 3 − e) bits so that distance information can be recovered within +no(1) error. As a special case of our theorem, we get a tight lower bound on the sparsity of additive spanners: the +6 spanner on O(n4 3) edges cannot be improved in the exponent, even if any subpolynomial amount of additive error is allowed. Our theorem implies new lower bounds for related objects as well; for example, the twenty-year-old +4 emulator on O(n4 3) edges also cannot be improved in the exponent unless the error allowance is polynomial. Central to our construction is a new type of graph product, which we call the Obstacle Product. Intuitively, it takes two graphs G,H and produces a new graph G H whose shortest paths structure looks locally like H but globally like G. In their seminal work which initiated random graph theory Erdos and Renyi discovered that many graph properties have sharp thresholds as the number of vertices tends to infinity. We prove a conjecture of Linial that every monotone graph property has a sharp threshold. This follows from the following theorem. Let Vn(p) = 0, 1 n denote the Hamming space endowed with the probability measure μp defined by μp( 1, 2, . . . , n) = pk · (1 − p)n−k, where k = 1 + 2 + · · · + n. Let A be a monotone subset of Vn. We say that A is symmetric if there is a transitive permutation group Γ on 1, 2, . . . , n such that A is invariant under Γ. Theorem. For every symmetric monotone A, if μp(A) > then μq(A) > 1− for q = p+ c1 log(1 2 ) logn. (c1 is an absolute constant.) Introduction 1. Notation and preliminary background 2. Gaussian variables. K-convexity 3. Ellipsoids 4. Dvoretzky's theorem 5. Entropy, approximation numbers, and Gaussian processes 6. Volume ratio 7. Milman's ellipsoids 8. Another proof of the QS theorem 9. Volume numbers 10. Weak cotype 2 11. Weak type 2 12. Weak Hilbert spaces 13. Some examples: the Tsirelson spaces 14. Reflexivity of weak Hilbert spaces 15. Fredholm determinants Final remarks Bibliography Index. Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ...