In-Depth Analysis of Densest Subgraph Discovery in a Unified Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a fundamental topic in graph mining, Densest Subgraph Discovery (DSD) has found a wide spectrum of real applications. Several DSD algorithms, including exact and approximation algorithms, have been proposed in the literature. However, these algorithms have not been systematically and comprehensively compared under the same experimental settings. In this paper, we first summarize a unified framework to incorporate all DSD algorithms from a high-level perspective. We then extensively compare representative DSD algorithms over a range of graphs - from small to billion-scale - and examine the effectiveness of all methods, providing a thorough analysis of DSD algorithms. As a byproduct of our experimental analysis, we are also able to identify new variants of the DSD algorithms over undirected graphs, by combining existing techniques, which are up to 10× faster than the state-of-the-art algorithm with the same accuracy guarantee. Finally, based on the findings, we offer promising research opportunities. We believe that a deeper understanding of the behavior of existing algorithms can provide new valuable insights for future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it