Bibliographic record
Abstract
We formalize the problem of detecting a community in a network into testing whether in a given (random) graph there is a subgraph that is unusually dense. Specifically, we observe an undirected and unweighted graph on $N$ nodes. Under the null hypothesis, the graph is a realization of an Erdős–Rényi graph with probability $p_{0}$. Under the (composite) alternative, there is an unknown subgraph of $n$ nodes where the probability of connection is $p_{1}>p_{0}$. We derive a detection lower bound for detecting such a subgraph in terms of $N$, $n$, $p_{0}$, $p_{1}$ and exhibit a test that achieves that lower bound. We do this both when $p_{0}$ is known and unknown. We also consider the problem of testing in polynomial-time. As an aside, we consider the problem of detecting a clique, which is intimately related to the planted clique problem. Our focus in this paper is in the quasi-normal regime where $np_{0}$ is either bounded away from zero, or tends to zero slowly.
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 | 0.006 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".