Hypergraph Artificial Benchmark for Community Detection (h–ABCD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Artificial Benchmark for Community Detection (ABCD) graph is a recently introduced random graph model with community structure and power-law distribution for both degrees and community sizes. The model generates graphs with similar properties as the well-known Lancichinetti, Fortunato, Radicchi (LFR) one, and its main parameter ξ can be tuned to mimic its counterpart in the LFR model, the mixing parameter μ. In this article, we introduce hypergraph counterpart of the ABCD model, h–ABCD, which also produces random hypergraph with distributions of ground-truth community sizes and degrees following power-law. As in the original ABCD, the new model h–ABCD can produce hypergraphs with various levels of noise. More importantly, the model is flexible and can mimic any desired level of homogeneity of hyperedges that fall into one community. As a result, it can be used as a suitable, synthetic playground for analyzing and tuning hypergraph community detection algorithms. [Received on 22 October 2022; editorial decision on 18 July 2023; accepted on 19 July 2023]
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".