MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810219908 · doi:10.14778/3358701.3358704

Online density bursting subgraph detection from temporal graphs

2019· article· en· W2810219908 on OpenAlexaff
Lingyang Chu, Yanyan Zhang, Yang Yu, Lanjun Wang, Jian Pei

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityDuration (music)Bounded functionIndecomposable moduleSet (abstract data type)BurstinessCombinatoricsMathematicsNetwork packetComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a temporal weighted graph that consists of a potentially endless stream of updates, we are interested in finding density bursting subgraphs (DBS for short), where a DBS is a subgraph that accumulates its density at the fastest speed. Online DBS detection enjoys many novel applications. At the same time, it is challenging since the time duration of a DBS can be arbitrarily long but a limited size storage can buffer only up to a certain number of updates. To tackle this problem, we observe the critical decomposability of DBSs and show that a DBS with a long time duration can be decomposed into a set of indecomposable DBSs with equal or larger burstiness. We further prove that the time duration of an indecomposable DBS is upper bounded and propose an efficient method TopkDBSOL to detect indecomposable DBSs in an online manner. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness, efficiency and scalability of TopkDBSOL in detecting significant DBSs from temporal graphs in real applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207