Properties and Performance of the ABCDe Random Graph Model with Community Structure
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
In this paper, we investigate properties and performance of synthetic random graph models with a built-in community structure. Such models are important for evaluating and tuning community detection algorithms that are unsupervised by nature. We propose ABCDe—a multi-threaded implementation of the ABCD (Artificial Benchmark for Community Detection) graph generator. We discuss the implementation details of the algorithm and compare it with both the previously available sequential version of the ABCD model and with the parallel implementation of the standard and extensively used LFR (Lancichinetti–Fortunato–Radicchi) generator. We show that ABCDe is more than ten times faster and scales better than the parallel implementation of LFR provided in NetworKit. Moreover, the algorithm is not only faster but random graphs generated by ABCD have similar properties to the ones generated by the original LFR algorithm, while the parallelized NetworKit implementation of LFR produces graphs that have noticeably different characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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