MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133302368 · doi:10.14778/3436905.3436916

Scalable mining of maximal quasi-cliques

2020· article· en· W3133302368 on OpenAlexaff
Guimu Guo, Da Yan, M. TAMER ÖZSU, Zhe Jiang, Jalal Khalil

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Mining Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScalabilityCliqueLoad balancing (electrical power)SpeedupVertex (graph theory)GraphTheoretical computer scienceParallel computingCombinatoricsMathematicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a user-specified minimum degree threshold γ , a γ -quasiclique is a subgraph g = (V g , E g ) where each vertex ν ∈ V g connects to at least γ fraction of the other vertices (i.e., ⌈ γ · (| V g |- 1)⌉ vertices) in g. Quasi-clique is one of the most natural definitions for dense structures useful in finding communities in social networks and discovering significant biomolecule structures and pathways. However, mining maximal quasi-cliques is notoriously expensive. In this paper, we design parallel algorithms for mining maximal quasi-cliques on G-thinker, a distributed graph mining framework that decomposes mining into compute-intensive tasks to fully utilize CPU cores. We found that directly using G-thinker results in the straggler problem due to (i) the drastic load imbalance among different tasks and (ii) the difficulty of predicting the task running time. We address these challenges by redesigning G-thinker's execution engine to prioritize long-running tasks for execution, and by utilizing a novel timeout strategy to effectively decompose long-running tasks to improve load balancing. While this system redesign applies to many other expensive dense subgraph mining problems, this paper verifies the idea by adapting the state-of-the-art quasi-clique algorithm, Quick, to our redesigned G-thinker. Extensive experiments verify that our new solution scales well with the number of CPU cores, achieving 201× runtime speedup when mining a graph with 3.77M vertices and 16.5M edges in a 16-node cluster.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207