Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

CGS: Configurable Graph Summarization with Bounded Neighborhood Loss and Query Support

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A graph summary can be made lossless or one-sided-lossy with a per-node neighborhood-loss bound, while still answering neighborhood, reachability and shortest-path queries accurately.

desk verdict Solid, configurable one-sided-error graph summarizer with real proofs, open code, and competitive compression; runtime and baseline gaps are real but secondary. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10969 v1 pith:HBANS5HR submitted 2026-07-13 cs.DS cs.AIcs.LG

Shubhadip Mitra , Sona Elza Simon , C Oswald , Arnab Bhattacharya , Arindam Pal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DScs.AIcs.LG
keywords graphsummarizationcompressioncommonneighborhoodsboundedneighborhoodlossquerysupportlosslessandlossyvariantssupernodemerge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large graphs are hard to store and query. Existing summarizers either give no user control over the kind or amount of error, or force a full decompression before any query can be answered. This paper shows that nodes that share many neighbors can be merged into supernodes so that the reconstructed graph either matches the original exactly, contains only missing edges, or contains only extra edges, and that a simple per-node fractional threshold keeps every neighborhood loss inside a user-chosen bound. Because the bound is maintained on neighborhoods, neighborhood queries become exact or bounded, and reachability and shortest-path answers inherit the same one-sided guarantees. Experiments on real and synthetic graphs report better compression ratios than current lossless and lossy baselines while the queries remain accurate and fast enough for practical use.

What carries the argument

Safe greedy merge of 2-hop neighbors: at every step the pair with highest compression gain is tested against the ancestor-degree update rules; if the projected neighborhood loss stays ≤ δ_u the merge is performed and the heap is updated, otherwise it is discarded.

What would settle it

On a graph known to contain many overlapping neighborhoods, run the algorithm with a moderate δ and measure the final neighborhood losses; if any node exceeds its prescribed δ_u, or if a different merge order yields a strictly smaller summary that still respects the same δ, the safety claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Three merge rules—exact common-neighborhood (CGS-E), intersection (CGS-I) and union (CGS-U)—together with a safety check that never lets any node’s neighborhood deviate by more than a prescribed fraction δ_u, produce a summary whose reconstruction and query answers obey exact equality or one-sided inclusion with a hard per-node loss bound.

Load-bearing premise

That repeatedly accepting the single currently safest highest-gain merge never later forces a configuration that violates the global loss bound or leaves better merges unexplored.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ConfiGS and the CGS framework for configurable summarization of undirected unweighted graphs. Nodes (or supernodes) that share common neighborhoods are greedily merged into supernodes under three variants: lossless CGS-E (exact neighborhoods), CGS-I (intersection; only false-negative edges, no false positives), and CGS-U (union; only false-positive edges, no false negatives). A per-node neighborhood-loss tolerance threshold δ_u (or uniform δ) bounds the fractional neighborhood discrepancy after reconstruction. Correctness of the one-sided inclusions, exact reconstruction for CGS-E, and the neighborhood-loss invariant are proved (Theorem 1, Lemmas 1–2); necessary/sufficient conditions for positive compression and a detailed complexity analysis (Theorem 5) are given. Local decompression supports neighborhood, reachability and shortest-path queries with the characteristics of Table 2. Experiments on ten SNAP graphs plus BA/ER families report compression ratios, reconstruction error, query accuracy and wall-clock times against SLUGGER, MoSSo, SWeG, GraphZip and SSumM, claiming superior or competitive compression and high query accuracy.

Significance. If the claims hold, CGS fills a genuine gap: a single framework that lets the user choose lossless versus one-sided lossy reconstruction, bound per-node neighborhood loss, and answer standard graph queries on the summary without full decompression. The formal guarantees (exact or one-sided neighborhoods with nl(u) ≤ δ_u) are stronger than most prior lossy summarizers that only report aggregate reconstruction error. The public C++ implementation and the breadth of the experimental suite (real + synthetic, compression + queries + scalability) make the contribution reproducible and practically usable. The work is therefore of clear interest to the graph-mining and data-management communities.

major comments (2)
  1. The experimental comparison for lossy methods is limited to SSumM (Sec. 10.2.4, Figs. 5–9). The authors correctly note that the lossy variant of SWeG and several other competitors (LDME, GraSS, etc.) were unavailable or produced negative compression after format conversion. Because the central empirical claim is “superior summarization than the state-of-the-art,” the paper should either (a) obtain or re-implement at least one additional recent lossy baseline that supports bounded error, or (b) explicitly qualify the claim as “superior to the publicly runnable baselines we could evaluate.” Without this, the strength of the empirical superiority statement remains overstated relative to the evidence presented.
  2. Complexity (Theorem 5) is O(m d*^3 log n) for CGS-E and higher for the lossy variants. On the denser SNAP graphs (GF, AP, HP) and on the larger synthetic instances the reported wall-clock times already reach hours (Figs. 21–24). The paper never discusses whether the cubic dependence on maximum degree can be mitigated (sampling of candidate pairs, approximate heaps, parallelization, etc.). Given that the abstract advertises “efficiency,” a short discussion of practical scalability limits and possible algorithmic improvements is needed for the claim to be fully credible.
minor comments (5)
  1. Table 1 lists many related methods; a short paragraph explaining why the chosen baselines are the most competitive among those that support both lossless/lossy modes and query answering would help the reader.
  2. Notation for reconstructed degree deg_Gr(u) is introduced in Algo. 1 and used heavily in IsSafeMerge/UpdateDegree, yet never formally defined in the main text; a one-line definition would improve readability.
  3. In Sec. 10.3.1 the authors observe that denser graphs compress better under CGS-E; a brief theoretical remark linking this observation to Theorems 2–4 would strengthen the narrative.
  4. Figures 2–7 would benefit from error bars or at least a statement that each bar is a single deterministic run (the algorithm is deterministic once δ is fixed).
  5. A few typographical inconsistencies remain (e.g., “ConfiGS” vs. “CGS”, occasional missing spaces around mathematical operators).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: correctness and bounded-loss claims follow by construction from elementary set operations and explicit safety checks, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central results (Theorem 1 on reconstruction invariants, Lemmas 1–2 on UpdateDegree/IsSafeMerge, Theorems 2–4 on compression conditions, and Table 2 query characteristics) are derived directly from the definitions of the three merge rules (intersection/union/exact common neighborhoods in Sec. 4.2), the ancestor-based degree tracking (Algos. 5–8), and the explicit pre-merge safety test that enforces nl(u) ≤ δ_u for every node. These are ordinary algorithmic invariants maintained by construction; they do not reduce a claimed “prediction” or “first-principles result” to an input that already encodes the same quantity. δ_u is an explicit user knob, never fitted to data and then re-presented as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or empirical pattern is imported via self-citation; the related-work citations are to independent prior algorithms used only for empirical baselines. Empirical superiority claims are ordinary head-to-head measurements on public SNAP and synthetic graphs, not forced by any fitted constant. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and free of the six circularity patterns.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard graph-theoretic definitions, the greedy-merge heuristic, and a small set of user-chosen numeric thresholds. No new physical entities are postulated; the only free parameters are the loss tolerances that the user deliberately supplies.

free parameters (1)
  • neighborhood loss tolerance threshold δ_u (or uniform δ) = 0.25 / 0.5 / 0.75 (uniform)
    User-chosen real in [0,1] that caps fractional neighborhood change for each node; experiments fix δ ∈ {0.25,0.5,0.75} for all nodes.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Graphs are undirected, unweighted and simple; adjacency-list size is |V|+2|E|.
    Stated in Sec. 3; all algorithms and complexity bounds rely on it.
  • ad hoc to paper A merge is safe if and only if the ancestor-based degree-update rules keep every node’s reconstructed degree inside the δ_u interval.
    Encoded in IsSafeMerge / UpdateDegree (Algos. 5 & 8); proved locally correct but not shown to be order-independent.
  • standard math Compression gain of a candidate pair is exactly the change in |V|+2|E| plus the constant overhead of one supernode (Eq. 7).
    Direct consequence of the adjacency-list cost model.
invented entities (1)
  • CGS-E / CGS-I / CGS-U supernode hierarchy with parent/ancestor sets independent evidence
    purpose: Encode the three one-sided merge semantics and enable local decompression.
    Defined in Sec. 4–5; the hierarchy is an algorithmic data structure, not a physical postulate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CGS: Configurable Graph Summarization with Bounded Neighborhood Loss and Query Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBANS5HR

@misc{pith2026260710969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CGS: Configurable Graph Summarization with Bounded Neighborhood Loss and Query Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBANS5HR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10969}
}
read the original abstract

Given a large graph, how to generate a compact summary graph that is configurable by the user and supports multiple graph queries with either no loss or with high accuracy? The ever growing size of graph datasets makes the above question on graph summarization very pertinent. Although, there are several approaches, there does not exist a configurable graph summarization method that offers high compression along with support for multiple graph queries on the summary graph with high accuracy, and allows the user to configure the summarization based on: (1) lossless or lossy summarization, (2) amount of tolerable neighborhood loss, (3) the type of loss it can tolerate, in terms of false positive edges (i.e., extra edges), false negative edges (i.e., missing edges), or neither, in both the (a) reconstructed graph and the (b) query answers. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel graph summarization framework CGS (Configurable Graph Summarizer) that builds upon the idea of aggregating nodes with common neighborhoods. The CGS framework consists of three summarization variants, CGS-E, CGS-I and CGS-U. While CGS-E is a lossless scheme, CGS-I and CGS-U are lossy schemes that allow reconstruction of the input graph with no false positive edges and no false negative edges, respectively. To bound the graph reconstruction loss, we introduce a user-specified parameter neighborhood loss tolerance threshold, that limits the maximum loss allowed in the neighborhood of each node. This allows graph reconstruction and neighborhood query evaluation with either no loss or with bounded loss guarantees. Empirical evaluation on several synthetic and real-world graphs shows that CGS offers superior summarization than the state-of-the-art methods, and can answer graph queries with fairly high accuracy and efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart of the CGS framework. The algorithm proceeds in iterations and continues till there is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Compression ratios 𝑐𝑟 of lossless schemes on real graphs listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compression ratios 𝑐𝑟 of lossless schemes on synthetic BA graphs with 𝑛 = 100, 000 nodes and the number of edges 𝑚 is shown in million (M) (lower 𝑐𝑟 is better). CGS-E offers better com￾pression with increasing density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Compression ratios𝑐𝑟 of lossy schemes on synthetic BA graphs with 𝑛 = 100, 000 nodes and the number of edges 𝑚 is shown in million (M) (lower 𝑐𝑟 is better). Overall, CGS-U offers smaller summaries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Compression ratios𝑐𝑟 of lossy schemes on synthetic ER graphs with 𝑛 = 100, 000 nodes and the number of edges 𝑚 is shown in million (M) (lower 𝑐𝑟 is better). Overall, CGS-U offers better compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Compression ratio 𝑐𝑟 vs. reconstruction error 𝑟𝑒: At practical low reconstruction error rates, CGS-I shows good compression ratio. (a) Compression ratio (b) Compression time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Effect of neighborhood loss threshold 𝛿 on compression ratio and compression time on real graphs. For lower loss thresholds, CGS-E offers smaller summaries. CGS-E takes least compression time. expected, since as 𝛿 increases, it allows more compression at the cost of h…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effect of neighborhood loss threshold 𝛿 on compression ratio for the synthetic graphs with 𝑛 = 10, 000 nodes and the number of edges as shown. Higher compression is achieved at higher loss thresholds. (a) BA graphs (b) ER graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effect of neighborhood loss threshold 𝛿 on compression time for the synthetic graphs with 𝑛 = 10, 000 nodes and the number of edges as shown. Compression time increases with density. For ER graphs (Fig. 11b), significant compression occurs only beyond a higher 𝛿 thres…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Effect of neighborhood loss tolerance threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Neighborhood query loss, EE: Most queries are answered with zero loss. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Average error in shortest path query: Overall, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Error in shortest path, 𝛿 = 0.5, EE: Most queries return the exact shortest path length. distance in 𝐺, and 𝑑𝐺𝑟 is the (approximate) shortest path in the reconstructed graph 𝐺𝑟 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Reachability query accuracy: CGS-I is accurate at low error thresholds while CGS-U is always accurate. (a) Neighborhood query (b) Shortest path query [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Query response times: Queries on the summary graphs are slower due to local decompression. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Local (LD) vs. global decompression (GD), EE: When the number of queries is large, global decom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Scalability evaluation of CGS-E in terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_20.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Scalability evaluation of lossy schemes in terms of compression time on synthetic BA graphs: Denser graphs take more time to com￾press [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_22.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Scalability evaluation in terms of compression time on real graphs: CGS algorithms are slower but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Reconstruction time results: CGS reconstruction times are practical. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_25.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sarwan Ali, Muhammad Ahmad, Maham Anwer Beg, Imdad Ullah Khan, Safiullah Faizullah, and Muhammad Asad Khan. 2024. Ssag: Summarization and sparsification of attributed graphs.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data18, 6 (2024), 1–22

    2024

  2. [2]

    Aris Anagnostopoulos, Valentina Arrigoni, Francesco Gullo, Giorgia Salvatori, and Lorenzo Severini. 2024. General- purpose query processing on summary graphs.Social Network Analysis and Mining14, 1 (2024), 157

    2024

  3. [3]

    Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.Science286, 5439 (Oct. 1999), 509–512. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data., Vol. 0, No. 0, Article 0. Publication date: 2025. CGS: Configurable Graph Summarization with Bounded Neighborhood Loss and Query Support 0:43

    1999

  4. [4]

    Maham Anwar Beg, Muhammad Ahmad, Arif Zaman, and Imdadullah Khan. 2018. Scalable approximation algorithm for graph summarization. InAdvances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 22nd Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2018, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 3-6, 2018, Proceedings, Part III 22. Springer, 502–514. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93040-4_40

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93040-4_40 2018

  5. [5]

    Dimitris Berberidis, Pierre J Liang, and Leman Akoglu. 2022. Summarizing labeled multi-graphs. InJoint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 53–68

    2022

  6. [6]

    Maciej Besta and Torsten Hoefler. 2018. Survey and taxonomy of lossless graph compression and space-efficient graph representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01799. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1806.01799

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.01799 2018

  7. [7]

    Maciej Besta, Simon Weber, Lukas Gianinazzi, Robert Gerstenberger, Andrey Ivanov, Yishai Oltchik, and Torsten Hoefler. 2019. Slim graph: Practical lossy graph compression for approximate graph processing, storage, and analytics. InHPCNSA. 1–25. doi:10.1145/3295500.3356182

    doi:10.1145/3295500.3356182 2019

  8. [8]

    Paolo Boldi, Marco Rosa, Massimo Santini, and Sebastiano Vigna. 2011. Layered label propagation: a multiresolution coordinate-free ordering for compressing social networks. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web(Hyderabad, India)(WWW ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 587–596. doi:10.1145/1963405.1963488

    doi:10.1145/1963405.1963488 2011

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Paolo Boldi and Sebastiano Vigna. 2004. The webgraph framework I: compression techniques. InProceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web. 595–602. doi:10.1145/988672.988752

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    2022.Introduction to algorithms

    Thomas H Cormen, Charles E Leiserson, Ronald L Rivest, and Clifford Stein. 2022.Introduction to algorithms. MIT press

    2022

  3. [11]

    Amin Emamzadeh Esmaeili Nejad, Mansoor Zolghadri Jahromi, and Mohammad Taheri. 2021. Graph compression based on transitivity for neighborhood query.Information Sciences576 (2021), 312–328. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.06.050

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Erdös and A

    P. Erdös and A. Rényi. 1959. On random graphs, I.Publicationes Mathematicae (Debrecen)6 (1959), 290–297

    1959

  5. [13]

    Wenfei Fan, Jianzhong Li, Xin Wang, and Yinghui Wu. 2012. Query preserving graph compression. InProceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. 157–168. doi:10.1145/2213836.2213855

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    Szymon Grabowski and Wojciech Bieniecki. 2010. Tight and simple web graph compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1006.0809. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1006.0809

    2010 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shinhwan Kang, Kyuhan Lee, and Kijung Shin. 2022. Personalized graph summarization: formulation, scalable algorithms, and applications. In2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 2319–2332. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.14755

    2022 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Arijit Khan, Sourav S Bhowmick, and Francesco Bonchi. 2017. Summarizing static and dynamic big graphs.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment10, 12 (2017), 1981–1984. doi:10.14778/3137765.3137825

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Kifayat Ullah Khan, Waqas Nawaz, and Young-Koo Lee. 2015. Set-based approximate approach for lossless graph summarization.Computing97 (2015), 1185–1207. doi:10.1007/s00607-015-0454-9

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    Jihoon Ko, Yunbum Kook, and Kijung Shin. 2020. Incremental lossless graph summarization. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 317–327. doi:10.1145/3394486.3403074

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Danai Koutra, U Kang, Jilles Vreeken, and Christos Faloutsos. 2014. Vog: Summarizing and understanding large graphs. InProceedings of the 2014 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 91–99. doi:10.1002/sam.11267

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    K Ashwin Kumar and Petros Efstathopoulos. 2018. Utility-driven graph summarization.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment12, 4 (2018), 335–347. doi:10.14778/3297753.3297755

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Emory Melody Lab. 2024. Graph Reduction / Summarization / Simplification. GitHub repository

    2024

  14. [22]

    Meiquan Lai, Yaqi Huang, Zhidan Liu, and Kaishun Wu. 2023. An optimized lossless graph summarization for large-scale graphs. In2023 IEEE 29th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS). IEEE, 355–362

    2023

  15. [23]

    Kyuhan Lee, Hyeonsoo Jo, Jihoon Ko, Sungsu Lim, and Kijung Shin. 2020. SsumM: Sparse summarization of massive graphs. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 144–154. doi:10.1145/3394486.3403057

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Kyuhan Lee, Jihoon Ko, and Kijung Shin. 2022. Slugger: Lossless hierarchical summarization of massive graphs. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 472–484. doi:10.1109/ICDE53745.2022.00040

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Kristen LeFevre and Evimaria Terzi. 2010. GraSS: Graph structure summarization. InProceedings of the 2010 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 454–465. doi:10.1137/1.9781611972801.40

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. 2014. SNAP Datasets: Stanford Large Network Dataset Collection. http://snap.stanford. edu/data

    2014

  19. [27]

    Faming Li, Zhaonian Zou, Jianzhong Li, and Yingshu Li. 2019. Graph compression with stars. InAdvances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 23rd Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2019, Macau, China, April 14-17, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 23. Springer, 449–461. doi:10.1007/978-...

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Panagiotis Liakos, Katia Papakonstantinopoulou, and Michael Sioutis. 2014. On the effect of locality in compressing social networks. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 650–655. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06028-6_71

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Yuzhi Liang, Chen Chen, Yukun Wang, Kai Lei, Min Yang, and Ziyu Lyu. 2020. Reachability preserving compression for dynamic graph.Information Sciences520, C (2020), 232–249. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.028 ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data., Vol. 0, No. 0, Article 0. Publication dat...

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Yike Liu, Tara Safavi, Abhilash Dighe, and Danai Koutra. 2018. Graph summarization methods and applications: A survey.ACM computing surveys (CSUR)51, 3 (2018), 1–34. doi:10.1145/3186727

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Sebastian Maneth and Fabian Peternek. 2015. A survey on methods and systems for graph compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00616. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1504.00616

    2015 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hossein Maserrat and Jian Pei. 2010. Neighbor query friendly compression of social networks. InProceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 533–542

    2010

  25. [33]

    Chemseddine Nabti and Hamida Seba. 2017. Querying massive graph data: A compress and search approach.Future Generation Computer Systems74 (2017), 63–75

    2017

  26. [34]

    Saket Navlakha, Rajeev Rastogi, and Nisheeth Shrivastava. 2008. Graph summarization with bounded error. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 419–432. doi:10.1145/1376616. 1376661

    2008 doi

  27. [35]

    Morteza Ramezani, Mahmut T Kandemir, and Anand Sivasubramaniam. 2022. GraphGuess: Approximate Graph Processing System with Adaptive Correction. InEuropean Conference on Parallel Processing. Springer, 285–300

    2022

  28. [36]

    Matteo Riondato, David García-Soriano, and Francesco Bonchi. 2017. Graph summarization with quality guarantees. Data mining and knowledge discovery31 (2017), 314–349. doi:10.1109/ICDM.2014.56

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Ryan A Rossi and Rong Zhou. 2018. Graphzip: a clique-based sparse graph compression method.Journal of Big Data5, 1 (2018), 10. doi:10.1186/s40537-018-0121-z

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Kijung Shin, Amol Ghoting, Myunghwan Kim, and Hema Raghavan. 2019. Sweg: Lossless and lossy summarization of web-scale graphs. InThe World Wide Web Conference. 1679–1690. doi:10.1145/3308558.3313402

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Quinton Yong, Mahdi Hajiabadi, Venkatesh Srinivasan, and Alex Thomo. 2021. Efficient graph summarization using weighted lsh at billion-scale. InProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data. 2357–2365. doi:10.1145/3448016.3457331 Received 7th February,...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.