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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given a directed graph G , the directed densest subgraph (DDS) problem refers to the finding of a subgraph from G , whose density is the highest among all the subgraphs of G . The DDS problem is fundamental to a wide range of applications, such as fraud detection, community mining, and graph compression. However, existing DDS solutions suffer from efficiency and scalability problems: on a 3,000-edge graph, it takes three days for one of the best exact algorithms to complete. In this article, we develop an efficient and scalable DDS solution. We introduce the notion of [ x , y ]-core, which is a dense subgraph for G , and show that the densest subgraph can be accurately located through the [ x , y ]-core with theoretical guarantees. Based on the [ x , y ]-core, we develop exact and approximation algorithms. We further study the problems of maintaining the DDS over dynamic directed graphs and finding the weighted DDS on weighted directed graphs, and we develop efficient non-trivial algorithms to solve these two problems by extending our DDS algorithms. We have performed an extensive evaluation of our approaches on 15 real large datasets. The results show that our proposed solutions are up to six orders of magnitude faster than the state-of-the-art.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it