Edge Replacement Grammars : A Formal Language Approach for Generating Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graphs are increasingly becoming ubiquitous as models for structured data. A generative model that closely mimics the structural properties of a given set of graphs has utility in a variety of domains. Much of the existing work require that a large number of parameters, in fact exponential in size of the graphs, be estimated from the data. We take a slightly different approach to this problem, leveraging the extensive prior work in the formal graph grammar literature. In this paper, we propose a graph generation model based on Probabilistic Edge Replacement Grammars (PERGs). We propose a variant of PERG called Restricted PERG (RPERG), which is analogous to PCFGs in string grammar literature. With this restriction, we are able to derive a learning algorithm for estimating the parameters of the grammar from graph data. We empirically demonstrate on real life datasets that RPERGs outperform existing methods for graph generation. We improve on the performance of the state-of-the-art Hyperedge Replacement Grammar based graph generative model. Despite being a context free grammar, the proposed model is able to capture many of the structural properties of real networks, such as degree distributions, power law and spectral characteristics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".