Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Faster Algorithms for Generalized Mean Densest Subgraph Problem (2310.11377v1)

Published 17 Oct 2023 in cs.DS, cs.LG, and stat.ML

Abstract: The densest subgraph of a large graph usually refers to some subgraph with the highest average degree, which has been extended to the family of $p$-means dense subgraph objectives by~\citet{veldt2021generalized}. The $p$-mean densest subgraph problem seeks a subgraph with the highest average $p$-th-power degree, whereas the standard densest subgraph problem seeks a subgraph with a simple highest average degree. It was shown that the standard peeling algorithm can perform arbitrarily poorly on generalized objective when $p>1$ but uncertain when $0<p<1$. In this paper, we are the first to show that a standard peeling algorithm can still yield $2{1/p}$-approximation for the case $0<p < 1$. (Veldt 2021) proposed a new generalized peeling algorithm (GENPEEL), which for $p \geq 1$ has an approximation guarantee ratio $(p+1){1/p}$, and time complexity $O(mn)$, where $m$ and $n$ denote the number of edges and nodes in graph respectively. In terms of algorithmic contributions, we propose a new and faster generalized peeling algorithm (called GENPEEL++ in this paper), which for $p \in [1, +\infty)$ has an approximation guarantee ratio $(2(p+1)){1/p}$, and time complexity $O(m(\log n))$, where $m$ and $n$ denote the number of edges and nodes in graph, respectively. This approximation ratio converges to 1 as $p \rightarrow \infty$.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (30)
  1. Finding dense subgraphs with size bounds. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph (WAW), pages 25–37, Barcelona, Spain, 2009.
  2. Dense subgraph maintenance under streaming edge weight updates for real-time story identification. VLDB J., 23(2):175–199, 2014.
  3. Greedily finding a dense subgraph. In Proceedings of the 5th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (SWAT), pages 136–148, Reykjavík, Iceland, 1996.
  4. Greedily finding a dense subgraph. J. Algorithms, 34(2):203–221, 2000.
  5. Complexity of finding dense subgraphs. Discret. Appl. Math., 121(1-3):15–26, 2002.
  6. Hila Becker. A survey of correlation clustering. Advanced Topics in Computational Learning Theory, pages 1–10, 2005.
  7. Moses Charikar. Greedy approximation algorithms for finding dense components in a graph. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization (APPROX), pages 84–95, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2000.
  8. The university of florida sparse matrix collection. ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 38(1):1:1–1:25, 2011.
  9. The dense k-subgraph problem. Algorithmica, 29:2001, 1999.
  10. MotifCut: regulatory motifs finding with maximum density subgraphs. Bioinformatics, 22(14):e150–e157, 2006.
  11. Dense subgraph discovery: KDD 2015 tutorial. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 2313–2314, Sydney, Australia, 2015.
  12. Andrew V Goldberg. Finding a maximum density subgraph. Technical report, University of California, Berkeley, 1984.
  13. Richard M Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In Complexity of computer computations, pages 85–103. Springer, 1972.
  14. On finding dense subgraphs. In Proceedings of the 36th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), volume 5555, pages 597–608, Rhodes, Greece, 2009.
  15. Andreas Krause. SFO: A toolbox for submodular function optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11:1141–1144, 2010.
  16. Trawling the web for emerging cyber-communities. Comput. Networks, 31(11-16):1481–1493, 1999.
  17. Explainable classification of brain networks via contrast subgraphs. In Proceeding of the 26th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 3308–3318, Virtual Event, CA, 2020.
  18. A survey of algorithms for dense subgraph discovery. In Managing and Mining Graph Data, volume 40 of Advances in Database Systems, pages 303–336. 2010.
  19. SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data, June 2014.
  20. Efficient community search with size constraint. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 97–108, Chania, Greece, 2021.
  21. Efficient algorithms for densest subgraph discovery on large directed graphs. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pages 1051–1066, online conference [Portland, OR, USA], 2020.
  22. Anna Nagurney. Innovations in financial and economic networks. OR/MS Today, 30(6):60–61, 2003.
  23. On the maximum quasi-clique problem. Discret. Appl. Math., 2013.
  24. Peeling bipartite networks for dense subgraph discovery. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 504–512, Marina Del Rey, CA, 2018.
  25. Patterns and anomalies in k-cores of real-world graphs with applications. Knowl. Inf. Syst., 54(3):677–710, 2018.
  26. The community-search problem and how to plan a successful cocktail party. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 939–948, Washington, DC, 2010.
  27. Social structure of facebook networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 391(16):4165–4180, 2012.
  28. Charalampos E. Tsourakakis. The k-clique densest subgraph problem. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), pages 1122–1132, Florence, Italy, 2015.
  29. The generalized mean densest subgraph problem. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pages 1604–1614, Virtual Event, 2021.
  30. HiDDen: Hierarchical dense subgraph detection with application to financial fraud detection. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), pages 570–578, Houston, TX, 2017.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Chenglin Fan (23 papers)
  2. Ping Li (421 papers)
  3. Hanyu Peng (6 papers)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.