MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004293141 · doi:10.1017/nws.2020.45

Artificial Benchmark for Community Detection (ABCD)—Fast random graph model with community structure

2021· article· en· W3004293141 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

VenueNetwork Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCommunity structureBenchmark (surveying)Random graphScalabilityGraphTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComplex networkDegree distributionAlgorithmMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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