MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408860469 · doi:10.1109/tit.2025.3555187

Efficient Algorithms for Attributed Graph Alignment With Vanishing Edge Correlation

2025· article· en· W4408860469 on OpenAlexafffund
Ziao Wang, Weina Wang, Lele Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Theory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer scienceCorrelationEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGraph theoryCombinatoricsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph alignment refers to the task of finding the vertex correspondence between two correlated graphs ofnvertices. Extensive study has been done on polynomial-time algorithms for the graph alignment problem under the Erdős–Rényi graph pair model, where the two graphs are Erdős–Rényi graphs with edge probability$q_{\mathrm {u}}$, correlated under certain vertex correspondence. To achieve exact recovery of the correspondence, all existing algorithms at least require the edge correlation coefficient$\rho _{\mathrm {u}}$between the two graphs to benon-vanishingas$n\rightarrow \infty $. Moreover, it is conjectured that no polynomial-time algorithm can achieve exact recovery under vanishing edge correlation${\rho _{\mathrm {u}}}\lt 1/\mathrm {polylog}(n)$. In this paper, we show that with a vanishing amount of additionalattribute information, exact recovery is polynomial-time feasible undervanishingedge correlation${\rho _{\mathrm {u}}}\ge n^{-\Theta (1)}$. We identify alocaltree structure, which incorporates one layer of user information and one layer of attribute information, and apply the subgraph counting technique to such structures. A polynomial-time algorithm is proposed that recovers the vertex correspondence for most of the vertices, and then refines the output to achieve exact recovery. The consideration of attribute information is motivated by real-world applications like LinkedIn and Twitter, where user attributes like birthplace and education background can aid alignment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information TheorySame topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207