On Reporting Durable Patterns in Temporal Proximity Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding patterns in graphs is a fundamental problem in databases and data mining. In many applications, graphs are temporal and evolve over time, so we are interested in finding durable patterns, such as triangles and paths, which persist over a long time. While there has been work on finding durable simple patterns, existing algorithms do not have provable guarantees and run in strictly super-linear time. The paper leverages the observation that many graphs arising in practice are naturally proximity graphs or can be approximated as such, where nodes are embedded as points in some high-dimensional space, and two nodes are connected by an edge if they are close to each other. We work with an implicit representation of the proximity graph, where nodes are additionally annotated by time intervals, and design near-linear-time algorithms for finding (approximately) durable patterns above a given durability threshold. We also consider an interactive setting where a client experiments with different durability thresholds in a sequence of queries; we show how to compute incremental changes to result patterns efficiently in time near-linear to the size of the changes.
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 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".