Random walks on dynamic graphs: Mixing times, hitting times, and return probabilities

We establish and generalise several bounds for various random walk quantities including the mixing time and the maximum hitting time. Unlike previous analyses, our derivations are based on rather intuitive notions of local expansion properties which allows us to capture the progress the random walk makes through t-step probabilities. We apply our framework to dynamically changing graphs, where the set of vertices is fixed while the set of edges changes in each round. For random walks on dynamic connected graphs for which the stationary distribution does not change over time, we show that their behaviour is in a certain sense similar to static graphs. For example, we show that the mixing and hitting times of any sequence of d-regular connected graphs is O(n^2), generalising a well-known result for static graphs. We also provide refined bounds depending on the isoperimetric dimension of the graph, matching again known results for static graphs. Finally, we investigate properties of random walks on dynamic graphs that are not always connected: we relate their convergence to stationarity to the spectral properties of an average of transition matrices and provide some examples that demonstrate strong discrepancies between static and dynamic graphs

Solo versus collaborative writing: Discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs in academic articles

International audienceThe number of authors collaborating to write scientific articles has been increasing steadily. And, with this collaboration, other factors have also changed, such as the length of the articles and the number of citations. However, little is known about potential discrepancies in the use of tables and graphs between single and collaborating authors. In this paper we ask whether multi-author articles contain more tables and graphs than single-author articles and we studied 5,180 recent articles published in six science and social sciences journals. We found both that pairs and multiple-authors used significantly more tables and graphs than single authors. Such findings indicate that there is a greater emphasis on the role of tables and graphs in collaborative writing, and we discuss some of the possible causes and implications of these findings

Analysis of Network Clustering Algorithms and Cluster Quality Metrics at Scale

Notions of community quality underlie network clustering. While studies surrounding network clustering are increasingly common, a precise understanding of the realtionship between different cluster quality metrics is unknown. In this paper, we examine the relationship between stand-alone cluster quality metrics and information recovery metrics through a rigorous analysis of four widely-used network clustering algorithms -- Louvain, Infomap, label propagation, and smart local moving. We consider the stand-alone quality metrics of modularity, conductance, and coverage, and we consider the information recovery metrics of adjusted Rand score, normalized mutual information, and a variant of normalized mutual information used in previous work. Our study includes both synthetic graphs and empirical data sets of sizes varying from 1,000 to 1,000,000 nodes. We find significant differences among the results of the different cluster quality metrics. For example, clustering algorithms can return a value of 0.4 out of 1 on modularity but score 0 out of 1 on information recovery. We find conductance, though imperfect, to be the stand-alone quality metric that best indicates performance on information recovery metrics. Our study shows that the variant of normalized mutual information used in previous work cannot be assumed to differ only slightly from traditional normalized mutual information. Smart local moving is the best performing algorithm in our study, but discrepancies between cluster evaluation metrics prevent us from declaring it absolutely superior. Louvain performed better than Infomap in nearly all the tests in our study, contradicting the results of previous work in which Infomap was superior to Louvain. We find that although label propagation performs poorly when clusters are less clearly defined, it scales efficiently and accurately to large graphs with well-defined clusters

GNNEvaluator: Evaluating GNN Performance On Unseen Graphs Without Labels

Evaluating the performance of graph neural networks (GNNs) is an essential task for practical GNN model deployment and serving, as deployed GNNs face significant performance uncertainty when inferring on unseen and unlabeled test graphs, due to mismatched training-test graph distributions. In this paper, we study a new problem, GNN model evaluation, that aims to assess the performance of a specific GNN model trained on labeled and observed graphs, by precisely estimating its performance (e.g., node classification accuracy) on unseen graphs without labels. Concretely, we propose a two-stage GNN model evaluation framework, including (1) DiscGraph set construction and (2) GNNEvaluator training and inference. The DiscGraph set captures wide-range and diverse graph data distribution discrepancies through a discrepancy measurement function, which exploits the outputs of GNNs related to latent node embeddings and node class predictions. Under the effective training supervision from the DiscGraph set, GNNEvaluator learns to precisely estimate node classification accuracy of the to-be-evaluated GNN model and makes an accurate inference for evaluating GNN model performance. Extensive experiments on real-world unseen and unlabeled test graphs demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method for GNN model evaluation.Comment: Accepted by NeurIPS 202