Artificial Benchmark for Community Detection (ABCD)—Fast random graph model with community structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most of the current complex networks that are of interest to practitioners possess a certain community structure that plays an important role in understanding the properties of these networks. For instance, a closely connected social communities exhibit faster rate of transmission of information in comparison to loosely connected communities. Moreover, many machine learning algorithms and tools that are developed for complex networks try to take advantage of the existence of communities to improve their performance or speed. As a result, there are many competing algorithms for detecting communities in large networks. Unfortunately, these algorithms are often quite sensitive and so they cannot be fine-tuned for a given, but a constantly changing, real-world network at hand. It is therefore important to test these algorithms for various scenarios that can only be done using synthetic graphs that have built-in community structure, power law degree distribution, and other typical properties observed in complex networks. The standard and extensively used method for generating artificial networks is the LFR graph generator. Unfortunately, this model has some scalability limitations and it is challenging to analyze it theoretically. Finally, the mixing parameter μ, the main parameter of the model guiding the strength of the communities, has a non-obvious interpretation and so can lead to unnaturally defined networks. In this paper, we provide an alternative random graph model with community structure and power law distribution for both degrees and community sizes, the Artificial Benchmark for Community Detection (ABCD graph). The model generates graphs with similar properties as the LFR one, and its main parameter ξ can be tuned to mimic its counterpart in the LFR model, the mixing parameter μ. We show that the new model solves the three issues identified above and more. In particular, we test the speed of our algorithm and do a number of experiments comparing basic properties of both ABCD and LFR. The conclusion is that these models produce graphs with comparable properties but ABCD is fast, simple, and can be easily tuned to allow the user to make a smooth transition between the two extremes: pure (independent) communities and random graph with no community structure.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".