Statistical guarantees for local graph clustering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local graph clustering methods aim to find small clusters in very large graphs. These methods take as input a graph and a seed node, and they return as output a good cluster in a running time that depends on the size of the output cluster but that is independent of the size of the input graph. In this paper, we adopt a statistical perspective on local graph clustering, and we analyze the performance of the l1-regularized PageRank method~(Fountoulakis et. al.) for the recovery of a single target cluster, given a seed node inside the cluster. Assuming the target cluster has been generated by a random model, we present two results. In the first, we show that the optimal support of l1-regularized PageRank recovers the full target cluster, with bounded false positives. In the second, we show that if the seed node is connected solely to the target cluster then the optimal support of l1-regularized PageRank recovers exactly the target cluster. We also show empirically that l1-regularized PageRank has a state-of-the-art performance on many real graphs, demonstrating the superiority of the method. From a computational perspective, we show that the solution path of l1-regularized PageRank is monotonic. This allows for the application of the forward stagewise algorithm, which approximates the solution path in running time that does not depend on the size of the whole graph. Finally, we show that l1-regularized PageRank and approximate personalized PageRank (APPR), another very popular method for local graph clustering, are equivalent in the sense that we can lower and upper bound the output of one with the output of the other. Based on this relation, we establish for APPR similar results to those we establish for l1-regularized PageRank.
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 | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".