MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392846003 · doi:10.1145/3625007.3627337

USIWO: A Local Community Search Algorithm for Uncertain Graphs

2023· article· en· W4392846003 on OpenAlexaff
Yashar Talebirad, Mohammadmahdi Zafarmand, Osmar R. Zai͏̈ane, Christine Largeron

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceProbabilistic logicGraphNode (physics)Partition (number theory)AlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community detection and community search are both critical tasks in graph mining, each serving unique purposes and presenting distinct challenges. The former aims to partition the graph vertices into densely connected subsets, while the latter adopts a more ego-centric approach, focusing on a specific node or group of nodes to identify a densely-connected subgraph that contains these query nodes. However, many real-world networks are characterized by uncertainty, leading to the notion of uncertain or probabilistic graphs. The transition from deterministic graphs to uncertain graphs introduces new challenges. We present USIWO, an efficient and practical solution for community search in unweighted uncertain graphs with edge uncertainty. In addition to being accurate, the approach utilizes an efficient data structure for storing only the relevant parts of the network in main memory, eliminating the need to store the entire graph, making it a valuable tool in finding the core of a community on very large uncertain graphs, when there is limited time and memory available. The algorithm operates through a one-node-expansion approach, based on the concepts of strong and weak links within a graph. Experimental results on several datasets demonstrate the algorithm's efficiency and performance.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designOther design
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 topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207