MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391054883 · doi:10.14778/3632093.3632118

MOSER: Scalable Network Motif Discovery Using Serial Test

2023· article· en· W4391054883 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Matin Najafi, Chenhao Ma, Xiaodong Li, Reynold Cheng, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotif (music)Computer scienceScalabilityGraphTheoretical computer scienceCluster analysisNetwork motifData miningArtificial intelligenceComplex networkDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a graph G , a motif (e.g., 3-node clique) is a fundamental building block for G. Recently, motif-based graph analysis has attracted much attention due to its efficacy in tasks such as clustering, ranking, and link prediction. These tasks require Network Motif Discovery (NMD) at the early stage to identify the motifs of G. However, existing NMD solutions have two drawbacks: (1) Lack of theoretical guarantees on the quality of the samples generated using the existing methods, and (2) inefficient algorithms, which are not scalable for large graphs. These limitations hinder the exploration of motifs for analyzing large graphs. To address the above issues, we propose a novel solution named MOSER ( MO tif Discovery using SER ial Test). This novel NMD framework leverages a significance testing method known as the serial test, which differs from the existing solutions. We further propose two fast incremental subgraph counting algorithms, allowing MOSER to scale to larger graphs than ever possible before. Extensive experimental results show that using MOSER can improve the state-of-the-art up to 5 orders of magnitude in efficiency and that the motifs found by MOSER facilitate downstream tasks such as link prediction.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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