MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097564016

CMU-ML-10-100 Fast Nearest-neighbor Search in Disk-resident Graphs

2010· article· en· W7097564016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisGraphComputationNode (physics)Degree (music)Clustering coefficientRandom walkCluster (spacecraft)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Link prediction, personalized graph search, fraud detection, and many such graph mining problems revolve around the computation of the most “similar ” k nodes to a given query node. One widely used class of similarity measures is based on random walks on graphs, e.g., personalized pagerank, hitting and commute times, and simrank. There are two fundamental problems associated with these measures. First, existing online algorithms typically examine the local neighborhood of the query node which can become significantly slower whenever high-degree nodes are encountered (a common phenomenon in real-world graphs). We prove that turning high degree nodes into sinks results in only a small approximation error, while greatly improving running times. The second problem is that of computing similarities at query time when the graph is too large to be memoryresident. The obvious solution is to split the graph into clusters of nodes and store each cluster on a disk page; ideally random walks will rarely cross cluster boundaries and cause page-faults. Our contributions here are twofold: (a) we present an efficient deterministic algorithm to find the k closest neighbors (in terms of personalized pagerank) of any query node in such a clustered graph, and (b) we develop a clustering algorithm (RWDISK) that uses only sequential sweeps over data files. Empirical results on several large publicly available graphs like DBLP, Citeseer and Live-Journal ( ∼ 90 M edges) demonstrate that turning high degree nodes into sinks not only improves running time of RWDISK by a factor of 3 but also boosts link prediction accuracy by a factor of 4 on average. We also show that RWDISK returns more desirable (high conductance and small size) clusters than the popular clustering algorithm METIS, while requiring much less memory. Finally our deterministic algorithm for computing nearest neighbors incurs far fewer page-faults (factor of 5) than actually simulating random walks

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.040

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGraph Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207