Evaluating Stability in Massive Social Networks: Efficient Streaming Algorithms for Structural Balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural balance theory studies stability in networks. Given a $n$-vertex complete graph $G=(V,E)$ whose edges are labeled positive or negative, the graph is considered \emph{balanced} if every triangle either consists of three positive edges (three mutual ``friends''), or one positive edge and two negative edges (two ``friends'' with a common ``enemy''). From a computational perspective, structural balance turns out to be a special case of correlation clustering with the number of clusters at most two. The two main algorithmic problems of interest are: $(i)$ detecting whether a given graph is balanced, or $(ii)$ finding a partition that approximates the \emph{frustration index}, i.e., the minimum number of edge flips that turn the graph balanced. We study these problems in the streaming model where edges are given one by one and focus on \emph{memory efficiency}. We provide randomized single-pass algorithms for: $(i)$ determining whether an input graph is balanced with $O(\log{n})$ memory, and $(ii)$ finding a partition that induces a $(1 + \varepsilon)$-approximation to the frustration index with $O(n \cdot \text{polylog}(n))$ memory. We further provide several new lower bounds, complementing different aspects of our algorithms such as the need for randomization or approximation. To obtain our main results, we develop a method using pseudorandom generators (PRGs) to sample edges between independently-chosen \emph{vertices} in graph streaming. Furthermore, our algorithm that approximates the frustration index improves the running time of the state-of-the-art correlation clustering with two clusters (Giotis-Guruswami algorithm [SODA 2006]) from $n^{O(1/\varepsilon^2)}$ to $O(n^2\log^3{n}/\varepsilon^2 + n\log n \cdot (1/\varepsilon)^{O(1/\varepsilon^4)})$ time for $(1+\varepsilon)$-approximation. These results may be of independent interest.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".