MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386123456 · doi:10.14778/3611479.3611516

Scaling Up Structural Clustering to Large Probabilistic Graphs Using Lyapunov Central Limit Theorem

2023· article· en· W4386123456 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Howie, Venkatesh Srinivasan, Alex Thomo

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisProbabilistic logicTheoretical computer scienceCorrelation clusteringComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural clustering is one of the most widely used graph clustering frameworks. In this paper, we focus on structural clustering of probabilistic graphs, which comes with significant computational challenges and has, so far, resisted efficient solutions that are able to scale to large graphs, e.g. the state-of-art can only handle graphs with a few million edges. We address the main bottleneck step of probabilistic structural clustering, computing the structural similarity of vertices based on their Jaccard similarity over the set of possible worlds of a given probabilistic graph. The state-of-art used Dynamic Programming, a quadratic run-time algorithm, that does not scale to pairs of vertices of high degree. In this paper we present a novel approach based on Lyapunov Central Limit Theorem. By using a carefully chosen set of random variables we are able to cast the computation of structural similarity to computing a one-tailed area under the Normal Distribution. Our approach has linear runtime as opposed to quadratic, and as such, it scales to much larger inputs. Extensive experiments show that our approach can handle massive graphs at web-scale which the state-of-art cannot.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207