MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2212315060 · doi:10.14778/2856318.2856323

Approximate closest community search in networks

2015· article· en· W2212315060 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrussComputer scienceApproximation algorithmGreedy algorithmSet (abstract data type)GraphEfficient algorithmTheoretical computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsCombinatoricsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, there has been significant interest in the study of the community search problem in social and information networks: given one or more query nodes, find densely connected communities containing the query nodes. However, most existing studies do not address the "free rider" issue, that is, nodes far away from query nodes and irrelevant to them are included in the detected community. Some state-of-the-art models have attempted to address this issue, but not only are their formulated problems NP-hard, they do not admit any approximations without restrictive assumptions, which may not always hold in practice. In this paper, given an undirected graph G and a set of query nodes Q , we study community search using the k -truss based community model. We formulate our problem of finding a closest truss community (CTC), as finding a connected k -truss subgraph with the largest k that contains Q , and has the minimum diameter among such subgraphs. We prove this problem is NP-hard. Furthermore, it is NP-hard to approximate the problem within a factor (2-ε), for any ε > 0. However, we develop a greedy algorithmic framework, which first finds a CTC containing Q , and then iteratively removes the furthest nodes from Q , from the graph. The method achieves 2-approximation to the optimal solution. To further improve the efficiency, we make use of a compact truss index and develop efficient algorithms for k -truss identification and maintenance as nodes get eliminated. In addition, using bulk deletion optimization and local exploration strategies, we propose two more efficient algorithms. One of them trades some approximation quality for efficiency while the other is a very efficient heuristic. Extensive experiments on 6 real-world networks show the effectiveness and efficiency of our community model and search algorithms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it