Column generation algorithms for exact modularity maximization in networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding modules, or clusters, in networks currently attracts much attention in several domains. The most studied criterion for doing so, due to Newman and Girvan [Phys. Rev. E 69, 026113 (2004)], is modularity maximization. Many heuristics have been proposed for maximizing modularity and yield rapidly near optimal solution or sometimes optimal ones but without a guarantee of optimality. There are few exact algorithms, prominent among which is a paper by Xu [Eur. Phys. J. B 60, 231 (2007)]. Modularity maximization can also be expressed as a clique partitioning problem and the row generation algorithm of Grötschel and Wakabayashi [Math. Program. 45, 59 (1989)] applied. We propose to extend both of these algorithms using the powerful column generation methods for linear and non linear integer programming. Performance of the four resulting algorithms is compared on problems from the literature. Instances with up to 512 entities are solved exactly. Moreover, the computing time of previously solved problems are reduced substantially.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".