Finding planted cliques using gradient descent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The planted clique problem is a paradigmatic model of statistical-to-computational gaps: the planted clique is information-theoretically detectable if its size $k\ge 2\log_2 n$ but polynomial-time algorithms only exist for the recovery task when $k= Ω(\sqrt{n})$. By now, there are many algorithms that succeed as soon as $k = Ω(\sqrt{n})$. Glaringly, however, no black-box optimization method, e.g., gradient descent or the Metropolis process, has been shown to work. In fact, Chen, Mossel, and Zadik recently showed that any Metropolis process whose state space is the set of cliques fails to find any sub-linear sized planted clique in polynomial time if initialized naturally from the empty set. We show that using the method of Lagrange multipliers, namely optimizing the Hamiltonian given by the sum of the objective function and the clique constraint over the space of all subgraphs, succeeds. In particular, we prove that Markov chains which minimize this Hamiltonian (gradient descent and a low-temperature relaxation of it) succeed at recovering planted cliques of size $k = Ω(\sqrt{n})$ if initialized from the full graph. Importantly, initialized from the empty set, the relaxation still does not help the gradient descent find sub-linear planted cliques. We also demonstrate robustness of these Markov chain approaches under a natural contamination model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".