MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206612087 · doi:10.1109/ickg52313.2021.00042

UFreS: A New Technique for Discovering Frequent Subgraph Patterns in Uncertain Graph Databases

2021· article· en· W4206612087 on OpenAlexafffund
Riddho Ridwanul Haque, Chowdhury Farhan Ahmed, Md. Samiullah, Carson K. Leung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSubgraph isomorphism problemScalabilityGraph databaseData miningGraphEmbeddingTheoretical computer scienceDatabaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large graph data repositories are becoming in-creasingly common. Identifying frequently appearing subgraph patterns in such databases can reveal useful information, and such patterns have been used for a variety of applications. Im-perfections and stochasticity are often unavoidable in real-world graph data, and the existence of edges in the graphs within such databases is often uncertain. Taking this uncertainty into account while mining frequent patterns poses considerable computational challenges. However, doing so is crucial for accurately mining relevant patterns. Existing frequent subgraph mining approaches that consider uncertainty rely on approximation schemes, and are both inefficient and inaccurate. In this paper, we present UFreS, an exact algorithm for mining frequent subgraph patterns from uncertain graph databases. We also introduce Edge-Embedding graphs, the first data structure designed to efficiently and exactly infer the expected support of a subgraph pattern in an uncer-tain graph. Experimental evaluations conducted on real-world datasets show that UFreS is efficient, scalable, and outperforms the existing approaches in terms of runtime, memory usage and accuracy.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207