arXiv++ Combinatorics

We introduce a mathematical framework for the linear representation hypothesis (LRH), which asserts that intermediate layers of language models store features linearly. We separate the hypothesis into two claims: linear representation (features are linearly embedded in neuron activations) and linear accessibility (features can be linearly decoded). We then ask: How many neurons $d$ suffice to both linearly represent and linearly access $m$ features? Classical results in compressed sensing imply that for $k$-sparse inputs, $d = O(k\log (m/k))$ suffices if we allow non-linear decoding algorithms (Candes and Tao, 2006; Candes et al., 2006; Donoho, 2006). However, the additional requirement of linear decoding takes the problem out of the classical compressed sensing, into linear compressed sensing. Our main theoretical result establishes nearly-matching upper and lower bounds for linear compressed sensing. We prove that $d = Ω_ε(\frac{k^2}{\log k}\log (m/k))$ is required while $d = O_ε(k^2\log m)$ suffices. The lower bound establishes a quantitative gap between classical and linear compressed setting, illustrating how linear accessibility is a meaningfully stronger hypothesis than linear representation alone. The upper bound confirms that neurons can store an exponential number of features under the LRH, giving theoretical evidence for the "superposition hypothesis" (Elhage et al., 2022). The upper bound proof uses standard random constructions of matrices with approximately orthogonal columns. The lower bound proof uses rank bounds for near-identity matrices (Alon, 2003) together with Turán's theorem (bounding the number of edges in clique-free graphs). We also show how our results do and do not constrain the geometry of feature representations and extend our results to allow decoders with an activation function and bias.

The recent successes of large language models (LLMs) have led to a surge of theoretical research into language generation. A recent line of work proposes an abstract view, called language generation in the limit, where generation is seen as a game between an adversary and an algorithm: the adversary generates strings from an unknown language $K$, chosen from a countable collection of candidate languages, and after seeing a finite set of these strings, the algorithm must generate new strings from $K$ that it has not seen before. This formalism highlights a key tension: the trade-off between validity (the algorithm should only produce strings from the language) and breadth (it should be able to produce many strings from the language). This trade-off is central in applied language generation as well, where it appears as a balance between hallucination (generating invalid utterances) and mode collapse (generating only a restricted set of outputs). Despite its importance, this trade-off has been challenging to study quantitatively. We develop ways to quantify this trade-off by formalizing breadth using measures of density. Existing algorithms for language generation in the limit produce output sets that can have zero density in the true language, and this important failure of breadth might seem unavoidable. We show, however, that such a failure is not necessary: we provide an algorithm for language generation in the limit whose outputs have strictly positive density in $K$. We also study the internal representations built by these algorithms, specifically the sequence of hypothesized candidate languages they consider, and show that achieving the strongest form of breadth may require oscillating indefinitely between high- and low-density representations. Our analysis introduces a novel topology on language families, with notions of convergence and limit points playing a key role.

The Friendship Paradox is a simple and powerful statement about node degrees in a graph (Feld 1991). However, it only applies to undirected graphs with no edge weights, and the only node characteristic it concerns is degree. Since many social networks are more complex than that, it is useful to generalize this phenomenon, if possible, and a number of papers have proposed different generalizations. Here, we unify these generalizations in a common framework, retaining the focus on undirected graphs and allowing for weighted edges and for numeric node attributes other than degree to be considered, since this extension allows for a clean characterization and links to the original concepts most naturally. While the original Friendship Paradox and the Weighted Friendship Paradox hold for all graphs, considering non-degree attributes actually makes the extensions fail around 50% of the time, given random attribute assignment. We provide simple correlation-based rules to see whether an attribute-based version of the paradox holds. In addition to theory, our simulation and data results show how all the concepts can be applied to synthetic and real networks. Where applicable, we draw connections to prior work to make this an accessible and comprehensive paper that lets one understand the math behind the Friendship Paradox and its basic extensions.

Contact tracing can be thought of as a race between two processes: an infection process and a tracing process. In this paper, we study a simple model of infection spreading on a tree, and a tracer who stabilizes one node at a time. We focus on the question, how should the tracer choose nodes to stabilize so as to prevent the infection from spreading further? We study simple policies, which prioritize nodes based on time, infectiousness, or probability of generating new contacts.

The Friendship Paradox--the principle that "your friends have more friends than you do"--is a combinatorial fact about degrees in a graph; but given that many web-based social activities are correlated with a user's degree, this fact has been taken more broadly to suggest the empirical principle that "your friends are also more active than you are." This Generalized Friendship Paradox, the notion that any attribute positively correlated with degree obeys the Friendship Paradox, has been established mathematically in a network-level version that essentially aggregates uniformly over all the edges of a network. Here we show, however, that the natural node-based version of the Generalized Friendship Paradox--which aggregates over nodes, not edges--may fail, even for degree-attribute correlations approaching 1. Whether this version holds depends not only on degree-attribute correlations, but also on the underlying network structure and thus can't be said to be a universal phenomenon. We establish both positive and negative results for this node-based version of the Generalized Friendship Paradox and consider its implications for social-network data.

Homophily -- the tendency of nodes to connect to others of the same type -- is a central issue in the study of networks. Here we take a local view of homophily, defining notions of first-order homophily of a node (its individual tendency to link to similar others) and second-order homophily of a node (the aggregate first-order homophily of its neighbors). Through this view, we find a surprising result for homophily values that applies with only minimal assumptions on the graph topology. It can be phrased most simply as "in a graph of red and blue nodes, red friends of red nodes are on average more homophilous than red friends of blue nodes." This gap in averages defies simple intuitive explanations, applies to globally heterophilous and homophilous networks and is reminiscent of but structurally distinct from the Friendship Paradox. The existence of this gap suggests intrinsic biases in homophily measurements between groups, and hence is relevant to empirical studies of homophily in networks.

In the analysis of large-scale network data, a fundamental operation is the comparison of observed phenomena to the predictions provided by null models: when we find an interesting structure in a family of real networks, it is important to ask whether this structure is also likely to arise in random networks with similar characteristics to the real ones. A long-standing challenge in network analysis has been the relative scarcity of reasonable null models for networks; arguably the most common such model has been the configuration model, which starts with a graph $G$ and produces a random graph with the same node degrees as $G$. This leads to a very weak form of null model, since fixing the node degrees does not preserve many of the crucial properties of the network, including the structure of its subgraphs. Guided by this challenge, we propose a new family of network null models that operate on the $k$-core decomposition. For a graph $G$, the $k$-core is its maximal subgraph of minimum degree $k$; and the core number of a node $v$ in $G$ is the largest $k$ such that $v$ belongs to the $k$-core of $G$. We provide the first efficient sampling algorithm to solve the following basic combinatorial problem: given a graph $G$, produce a random graph sampled nearly uniformly from among all graphs with the same sequence of core numbers as $G$. This opens the opportunity to compare observed networks $G$ with random graphs that exhibit the same core numbers, a comparison that preserves aspects of the structure of $G$ that are not captured by more local measures like the degree sequence. We illustrate the power of this core-based null model on some fundamental tasks in network analysis, including the enumeration of networks motifs.

In the classical cake cutting problem, a resource must be divided among agents with different utilities so that each agent believes they have received a fair share of the resource relative to the other agents. We introduce a variant of the problem in which we model an underlying social network on the agents with a graph, and agents only evaluate their shares relative to their neighbors' in the network. This formulation captures many situations in which it is unrealistic to assume a global view, and also exposes interesting phenomena in the original problem. Specifically, we say an allocation is locally envy-free if no agent envies a neighbor's allocation and locally proportional if each agent values her own allocation as much as the average value of her neighbor's allocations, with the former implying the latter. While global envy-freeness implies local envy-freeness, global proportionality does not imply local proportionality, or vice versa. A general result is that for any two distinct graphs on the same set of nodes and an allocation, there exists a set of valuation functions such that the allocation is locally proportional on one but not the other. We fully characterize the set of graphs for which an oblivious single-cutter protocol-- a protocol that uses a single agent to cut the cake into pieces --admits a bounded protocol with $O(n^2)$ query complexity for locally envy-free allocations in the Robertson-Webb model. We also consider the price of envy-freeness, which compares the total utility of an optimal allocation to the best utility of an allocation that is envy-free. We show that a lower bound of $Ω(\sqrt{n})$ on the price of envy-freeness for global allocations in fact holds for local envy-freeness in any connected undirected graph. Thus, sparse graphs surprisingly do not provide more flexibility with respect to the quality of envy-free allocations.