On the Feasible Region of Efficient Algorithms for Attributed Graph Alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph alignment aims at finding the vertex correspondence between two correlated graphs, a task that frequently occurs in graph mining applications such as social network analysis. Attributed graph alignment is a variant of graph alignment, in which publicly available side information or attributes are exploited to assist graph alignment. Existing studies on attributed graph alignment focus on either theoretical performance without computational constraints or empirical performance of efficient algorithms. This motivates us to investigate efficient algorithms with theoretical performance guarantee. In this paper, we propose two polynomial-time algorithms that exactly recover the vertex correspondence with high probability. The feasible region of the proposed algorithms is near optimal compared to the information-theoretic limits. When specialized to the seeded graph alignment problem, the proposed algorithms strictly improve the best known feasible region for exact alignment by polynomial-time algorithms.
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 | 0.010 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".