SANS: Efficient Densest Subgraph Discovery over Relational Graphs without Materialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can we efficiently identify the densest subgraph over relational graphs? Existing dense subgraph discovery (DSD) approaches assume that a relational graph H is already derived from a heterogeneous data source and they focus on efficient discovery of the densest subgraph on the materialized H. Unfortunately, materializing relational graphs can be resource-intensive, which thus limits the practical usefulness of existing algorithms over large datasets. To mitigate this, we propose a novel Summary-bAsed deNsest Subgraph discovery (SANS) system. Our unique summary-based peeling algorithm forms the core of SANS. Following the peeling paradigm, it utilizes summaries of each node's neighborhood to efficiently estimate peeling coefficients and subgraph densities at each peeling iteration and thus avoids materializing the relational graph completely. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the efficacy and efficiency of SANS, reaching orders of magnitude speedups compared to the conventional baselines with materialization, while consistently achieving at least 95% accuracy compared to peeling algorithms based on materialization.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".