Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Publishing Community-Preserving Attributed Social Graphs with a Differential Privacy Guarantee

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read C-AGMDP publishes synthetic social graphs under differential privacy while preserving the original community structure.

desk verdict A genuinely new differentially private community-preserving attributed graph model, but the formal privacy claim has a likely load-bearing k/p typo in the noise scale that needs fixing before the paper can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00280 v1 pith:YAES4JHE submitted 2019-08-31 cs.SI cs.CRphysics.soc-ph

Xihui Chen , Sjouke Mauw , Yunior Ramírez-Cruz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.CRphysics.soc-ph
keywords attributedsocialgraphsdifferentialprivacysyntheticgraphgenerationcommunitydetectioncommunity-preservingmodelsgenerativeprivacy-preservingdatapublication
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

This paper sets out to establish that a community-preserving synthetic attributed social graph can be published under differential privacy without giving up global graph properties. It claims C-AGMDP is the first such method: it preserves the number and sizes of communities, intra- and inter-community edge densities, per-community attribute distributions, and attribute-edge correlations, while still approximating degree distributions and clustering coefficients. The payoff is that analysts can run community-sensitive tasks on synthetic graphs that carry a formal privacy guarantee.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the C-AGM model, a quintuple $\langle V, C, \Theta_M, \Theta_X, \Theta_F \rangle$ that factors graph generation into a community-respecting edge model (CPGM), a per-community attribute-vector model, and a model of attribute-edge correlations. The argument is carried by four mechanisms: a differentially private community partition obtained from a weighted combination of structural modularity and an attribute-similarity graph; sensitivity bounds, set under the paper's assumption that every input graph has at least 10,000 edges, that determine the Laplace noise scales; ladder-function-based private triangle counts; and a post-processing pipeline that restores graphicality and degree order after noise. Together these turn parameter estimation into a sequence of private computations whose outputs are safe to publish.

What would settle it

Generate graphs with fewer than 10,000 edges and a clear community structure, run the private partition mechanism on a graph and on a neighbouring graph that differs by one edge, and compare output distributions: if the probability ratio exceeds $e^{\varepsilon}$, the assumed sensitivity bound is violated. A simpler calculation check is to compute the true global sensitivity of the modularity score on such graphs and show it is larger than the assumed 0.0003.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that C-AGM, a generative model built on an earlier attributed graph model, can capture community structure explicitly: given a community partition, the model records community sizes, edge counts inside and between communities, attribute distributions within each community, and how attribute similarity correlates with edges inside versus across communities. A companion edge generator, CPGM, first samples edges using intra- and inter-community degree products and then edits the edge set to match triangle counts, which carries degree sequences and clustering coefficients along with it. The paper further claims that the whole parameter-estimation pipeline can be made $\varepsilon$-differentially private by composition, using a modularity-plus-attribute scoring function for the partition, Laplace noise with graphicality post-processing for degree counts, and ladder functions for triangle counts. Experiments on three real social networks support the claim that C-AGMDP synthetic graphs preserve community structure better than earlier private graph models without sacrificing global structural properties.

Load-bearing premise

The privacy guarantee rests on the assumption that every input graph has at least 10,000 edges, which sets the modularity score's sensitivity to 0.0003; if a graph has fewer edges, that bound is wrong and the published partition may not meet differential privacy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the model parameters are estimated once under a fixed privacy budget, any number of synthetic graphs can then be sampled without additional privacy cost.
  • Analysts can run community-sensitive tasks, such as recommendation or influence studies, on synthetic graphs that carry $\varepsilon$-differential privacy rather than on the original data.
  • Published graphs keep the same vertex set, but edges and attribute vectors are freshly sampled, so individual relationships and user features are not reproduced verbatim.
  • On the three real networks tested, the private model preserves community structure substantially better than the private baselines, while degree distributions and clustering coefficients remain comparable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that a natural extension would allow overlapping communities, since the current model assumes a partition and buckets unassigned vertices into a discard community.
  • The attribute-independence assumption inside each community means correlations among attributes are not modelled; capturing pairwise attribute marginals would be a direct next step, at the price of higher sensitivity and more noise.
  • The 10,000-edge sensitivity assumption suggests a data-dependent or smooth-sensitivity formulation could extend the guarantee to smaller networks, a route the paper itself opens when it flags the assumption.
  • If the approach scales, community-preserving private synthetic graphs could serve as a neutral benchmark for comparing community-detection algorithms under a known privacy budget without exposing the original graph.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces C-AGM, a community-preserving generative model for attributed graphs, and C-AGMDP, its differentially private variant. The model is designed to preserve community sizes, intra- and inter-community edge densities, per-community attribute distributions, attribute-edge correlations, degree distributions, and clustering coefficients. The authors propose efficient sampling and differentially private parameter estimation, and they evaluate the method on three real-world social networks (Petster, Facebook, Epinions) against two baselines. The central claim is that C-AGMDP is the first differentially private community-preserving method for publishing synthetic attributed graphs with a formal epsilon-DP guarantee.

Significance. If the central claims are upheld after correction, the paper would be a useful contribution to private graph publication: it explicitly targets community structure, which is often destroyed by differential privacy noise, and it demonstrates utility on real social graphs. The modeling and sampling design are thoughtful, and the experimental protocol is generally reasonable. However, the significance is conditional because the load-bearing privacy proof for the attribute-edge correlations contains a substantive error, and the evaluation metric reported as measuring attribute-edge correlations actually measures something different.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3] The Laplace noise scale for the attribute-edge correlation counts is incompatible with the stated sensitivity bound. In Section 5.3 the authors state that after degree truncation the global sensitivity is 2p, but they add noise drawn from Lap(2k/εF), where k is the number of attributes. Under Definition 2, changing the attribute vector of one node affects each incident edge's aggregated feature, contributing at most 2 to the L1 distance of the published count vectors per edge; with degree at most p the sensitivity is at most 2p, independently of k. With p=100 and k=13 (Petster) or k=50 (Facebook/Epinions), the noise scale used in the text is between 2 and 7.7 times too small. A mechanism adding Lap(2k/εF) does not satisfy εF-differential privacy, so the composition in Remark 1 does not certify ε-DP for C-AGMDP as written. The authors must replace 2k with 2p in the noise scale, or justify a different sensitivity bound, and re-check or re-run the experiments under the corrected scale.
  2. [Section 6.2] The evaluation measure described under the heading 'Distribution of attribute-edge correlations' is not a measure of attribute-edge correlations. The text defines p^C_F and ~p^C_F as distributions of attribute vectors of vertices in community C, with domain W = {0,1}^k, and then sets ρa = maxC H(p^C_F, ~p^C_F). This measures the per-community attribute distribution (property 4 of C-AGM), not the distribution of β(τ(v),τ(w)) over edges (property 5). Consequently, Tables 3-5 and the corresponding discussion in Section 6.3.2 do not actually provide empirical evidence that C-AGMDP preserves attribute-edge correlations. Please correct the definition so that the metric is computed over the aggregated features of edges, or relabel the metric and adjust the claims accordingly.
  3. [Section 5.1] The privacy guarantee for the community partition depends on the assumption that every input graph has at least m = 10,000 edges, which yields ΔQs(C) = 0.0003. This assumption is stated in Section 5.1 but is not carried into the abstract, Remark 1, or the conclusion, where the paper advertises a 'strong formal privacy guarantee.' For input graphs with fewer than 10,000 edges, the true global sensitivity of modularity is larger, and the exponential mechanism as described would not provide εc-differential privacy. Please state this condition prominently wherever the overall guarantee is summarized, or use the worst-case bound with the correspondingly larger noise scale so that the guarantee is unconditional for all graphs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.3 and Section 5.4] The phrase 'The global sensitivity of each of these sequences is 2(|V|−2), which is unbounded' is self-contradictory: a finite value cannot be unbounded. Presumably the intended meaning is that the sensitivity depends on |V| and can therefore be large; please rephrase.
  2. [Section 5.4] The sentence 'Since the global sensitivity of triangle count queries is unbounded' directly contradicts Proposition 3, which just stated the finite bound Δn^{intra}_Δ = maxC(|C|−2). If the sentence refers to the global triangle count (which grows with n), it should be rephrased to avoid the confusion with the intra-community triangle bound.
  3. [Algorithm 2] Line 10 of Algorithm 2 reinitializes E' to the empty set after line 3 had assigned E' from SampleEdgeSet, making the initially sampled edge set unused. This appears to be a pseudocode error; either the variable should be renamed or the reset removed.
  4. [Algorithm 4] Line 13 has a missing closing parenthesis in 'E←E∪{ (v1,v 3}' and line 30 lacks a separator between the edge-set update and the subsequent update to μ^{inter}_Δ. Please fix these typos for readability.
  5. [Section 5.3] There is a duplicated word in the sentence 'where where εF is the privacy budget reserved for this computation'; please remove the second 'where'.
  6. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'we conclude that LSQ(C)(G) ≤ ... and use this value as an upper bound for ΔQ_a(C)' appears to be a typo: the bound is for the combined score Q(C), not for Q_a(C) alone.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the community-preservation objective is baked into the model by design, but the empirical claims rest on stochastic sampling, independent community detectors, and external baselines, so no derivation reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

I find no circular step in this paper. C-AGM is explicitly defined to preserve the input community partition's cardinalities, intra- and inter-community edge counts, attribute distributions, and attribute-edge correlations; preserving these statistics is the stated design objective, not a derived prediction. The evaluation of community preservation uses stochastic samples from the model and compares them with original graphs through external community detectors (Louvain and CESNA), and the baselines (DCSBM, TriCycle, AGMDP-Tri) are external to the paper's construction. Thus the observed differences in utility are empirical and falsifiable rather than forced by definition. The only notable internal inconsistency is in Section 5.3, where the authors state that degree truncation yields global sensitivity 2p for attribute-edge correlation counts but then add Laplace noise with scale 2k/εF instead of 2p/εF; this is a privacy-proof correctness concern, not a circularity of the claimed derivation. Model parameters are estimated and evaluated on the same graph, which limits generalizability claims, but this is standard in-sample utility evaluation and does not make any output equal to its input by construction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. The main postulates are the structural assumptions on the graph (partition, attribute independence, fixed adjacency notion) and a hand-set sensitivity bound. The free parameters δ, w_s, p, and m are all chosen by the authors rather than derived from theory.

free parameters (4)
  • δ (aggregator discretization step)
    Section 4.4.3 defines β(x,x') = floor(cos_sim(x,x')/δ) with 0 < δ ≤ 1. The paper does not state the value used in experiments; this controls the granularity of attribute-edge correlation bins and affects both utility and the sensitivity of Θ_F.
  • w_s (modularity weight in private community partition) = 0.98 (experiments)
    Section 5.1 defines Q(C)=w_s Q_s(C)+w_a Q_a(C). Section 6.3.2 states ModDivisive is run with w_s=0.98. This hand-set weight balances structural and attribute modularity and influences the private partition used by all downstream parameters.
  • p (degree truncation bound) = 100 (experiments)
    Section 5.3 uses degree truncation to bound the sensitivity of attribute-edge correlation counts; p is set to 100 in the experiments (Section 6.3.2). Larger p preserves more structure but increases noise.
  • m (assumed minimum number of edges) = 10,000
    Section 5.1 sets m=10,000 to compute ΔQ_s(C)=0.0003. It is an ad hoc assumption about all possible input graphs; if the true edge count is lower, the sensitivity bound is too small.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Attributes are independent given the community
    Section 4.4.2: 'the assumption that attributes are independent' is introduced to make Θ_X estimation tractable. It reduces the attribute distribution to a product of per-component Bernoulli probabilities per community.
  • domain assumption Edges are sampled independently given model parameters
    Section 4.3 factors Pr(E|...) into a product over vertex pairs. This ignores degree correlations beyond the expected degrees used in CPGM, a standard simplification.
  • domain assumption The graph is undirected and communities form a disjoint partition with a discard community C0
    Section 3.1 assumes undirected edges and a partition where unassigned nodes are grouped into C0. This restricts the method to partition-based community structure and excludes overlapping communities.
  • domain assumption Neighbouring graphs differ in one edge or one attribute vector (Definition 2, from [12])
    This privacy adjacency treats vertex identities as public but edges and attributes as sensitive. It determines all sensitivity computations in Section 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The global sensitivity of modularity is bounded by 3/m with m ≥ 10,000
    Section 5.1 adopts m=10,000 for all graphs. This is not derived from data and is the basis for the exponential mechanism noise. If a graph has fewer edges, the privacy guarantee for the community partition step breaks.
  • standard math Restricted sensitivity truncation [3] bounds attribute-edge correlation sensitivity by 2p
    Section 5.3 relies on Blocki et al. to claim that after truncating degrees to p, the L1 sensitivity of the correlation histograms is 2p. The paper does not reprove this; it is a prior theorem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Publishing Community-Preserving Attributed Social Graphs with a Differential Privacy Guarantee." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAES4JHE

@misc{pith2026190900280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Publishing Community-Preserving Attributed Social Graphs with a Differential Privacy Guarantee},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAES4JHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00280}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel method for publishing differentially private synthetic attributed graphs. Unlike preceding approaches, our method is able to preserve the community structure of the original graph without sacrificing the ability to capture global structural properties. Our proposal relies on C-AGM, a new community-preserving generative model for attributed graphs. We equip C-AGM with efficient methods for attributed graph sampling and parameter estimation. For the latter, we introduce differentially private computation methods, which allow us to release community-preserving synthetic attributed social graphs with a strong formal privacy guarantee. Through comprehensive experiments, we show that our new model outperforms its most relevant counterparts in synthesising differentially private attributed social graphs that preserve the community structure of the original graph, as well as degree sequences and clustering coefficients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Similarities of community structures found by Louvain in synthetic graphs to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of differentially private models in terms of community structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detailed comparison of edge generative models in terms of complementary cu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Interpreting Network Differential Privacy

    math.ST 2025-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Edge-level differential privacy protects only tests between complete neighboring networks, not tests of individual edges, except under independence or bounded-dependence conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    OJ, L 119:1–88, 4.5.2016

    Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the european parliament and of the council of 27 april 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing directive 95/46/ec (general data protection regulation). OJ, L 119:1–88, 4.5.2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Kleinberg

    Lars Backstrom, Cynthia Dwork, and Jon M. Kleinberg. Wherefore art thou r3579x?: anonymized social networks, hidden patterns, and structural steganography. Commu- nications of the ACM , 54(12):133–141, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Differentially private data analysis of social networks via restricted sensitivity

    Jeremiah Blocki, Avrim Blum, Anupam Datta, and Or Sheffet. Differentially private data analysis of social networks via restricted sensitivity. In Proc. 4th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS), pages 87–96. ACM Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

    Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10):P10008, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Charles-Smith, Tera L

    Lauren E. Charles-Smith, Tera L. Reynolds, Mark A. Cameron, Mike Conway, Eric H. Y. Lau, Jennifer M. Olsen, Julie A. Pavlin, Mika Shigematsu, Laura C. Streichert, Katie J. Suda, and Courtney D. Corley. Using social media for actionable disease surveillance and outbreak management: A systematic literature review. PLOS ONE, 10(10):1–20, 10 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    The average distances in random graphs with given expected degrees

    Fan Chung and Linyuan Lu. The average distances in random graphs with given expected degrees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 99(25):15879– 15882, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Aaron Clauset, Cristopher Moore, and M. E. J. Newman. Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature, 453:98–101, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Differential privacy

    Cynthia Dwork. Differential privacy. In Proc. 33rd International Colloquium on Au- tomata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), volume 4052 of Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, pages 1–12. Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Michael Hay, Chao Li, Gerome Miklau, and David D. Jensen. Accurate estimation of the degree distribution of private networks. In Proc. 19th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , pages 169–178. IEEE Computer Society, 2009. 31

    2009

  2. [10]

    Pfeiffer III, Timothy La Fond, Sebasti´ an Moreno, and Jennifer Neville

    Joseph J. Pfeiffer III, Timothy La Fond, Sebasti´ an Moreno, and Jennifer Neville. Fast generation of large scale social networks while incorporating transitive closures. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust, (PASSAT) , pages 154–165. IEEE ...

    2012

  3. [11]

    Pfeiffer III, Sebasti´ an Moreno, Timothy La Fond, Jennifer Neville, and Brian Gallagher

    Joseph J. Pfeiffer III, Sebasti´ an Moreno, Timothy La Fond, Jennifer Neville, and Brian Gallagher. Attributed graph models: modeling network structure with correlated attributes. In Proc. 23rd International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) , pages 831–842. ACM Press, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Publishing attributed social graphs with formal privacy guarantees

    Zach Jorgensen, Ting Yu, and Graham Cormode. Publishing attributed social graphs with formal privacy guarantees. In Proc. 2016 International Conference on Manage- ment of Data (SIGMOD) , pages 107–122. ACM Press, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Using node centrality and optimal control to max- imize information diffusion in social networks

    Kundan Kandhway and Joy Kuri. Using node centrality and optimal control to max- imize information diffusion in social networks. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cy- bernetics: Systems , 47(7):1099–1110, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Stochastic blockmodels and community structure in networks

    Brian Karrer and Mark EJNewman. Stochastic blockmodels and community structure in networks. Physical review. E, 83(1):016107, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Smith, and Grigory Yaroslavtsev

    Vishesh Karwa, Sofya Raskhodnikova, Adam D. Smith, and Grigory Yaroslavtsev. Pri- vate analysis of graph structure. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 39(3):22:1– 22:33, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Slavkovic

    Vishesh Karwa and Aleksandra B. Slavkovic. Differentially private graphical degree sequences and synthetic graphs. In Proc. 2012 International Conference on Privacy in Statistical Databases (PSD) , volume 7556 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 273–285. Springer, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Towards an axiomatization of statistical privacy and utility

    Daniel Kifer and Bing-Rong Lin. Towards an axiomatization of statistical privacy and utility. In Proc. 29th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS) , pages 147–158. ACM Press, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Kolda, Ali Pinar, Todd D

    Tamara G. Kolda, Ali Pinar, Todd D. Plantenga, and C. Seshadhri. A scalable gener- ative graph model with community structure. SIAM J. Scientific Computing , 36(5), 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    KONECT: the koblenz network collection

    J´ erˆ ome Kunegis. KONECT: the koblenz network collection. InProc. 22nd Interna- tional World Wide Web Conference (WWW) , pages 1343–1350. ACM Press, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Scalable modeling of real graphs using kronecker multiplication

    Jure Leskovec and Christos Faloutsos. Scalable modeling of real graphs using kronecker multiplication. In Proc. 24th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 497–504. ACM Press, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection

    Jure Leskovec and Andrej Krevl. SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection. http://snap.stanford.edu/data, 2014. 32

    2014

  14. [22]

    Stevenson, Peter Wilson, Anne Ridler, and Cord Heuer

    Nelly Marquetoux, Mark A. Stevenson, Peter Wilson, Anne Ridler, and Cord Heuer. Using social network analysis to inform disease control interventions. Preventive Vet- erinary Medicine, 126:94–104, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Trust-aware recommender systems

    Paolo Massa and Paolo Avesani. Trust-aware recommender systems. In Proc. 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys), pages 17–24. ACM Press, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Robust active at- tacks on social graphs

    Sjouke Mauw, Yunior Ram´ ırez-Cruz, and Rolando Trujillo-Rasua. Robust active at- tacks on social graphs. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 33(5):1357–1392, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    Privacy integrated queries: an extensible platform for privacy- preserving data analysis

    Frank McSherry. Privacy integrated queries: an extensible platform for privacy- preserving data analysis. Communications of the ACM , 53(9):89–97, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Mechanism design via differential privacy

    Frank McSherry and Kunal Talwar. Mechanism design via differential privacy. In Proc. 48th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 94–103. IEEE Computer Society, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Mir and Rebecca N

    Darakhshan J. Mir and Rebecca N. Wright. A differentially private graph estimator. In Proc. 2009 ICDM International Workshop on Privacy Aspects of Data Mining (ICDM), pages 122–129. IEEE Computer Society, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    Preserving link privacy in social network based systems

    Prateek Mittal, Charalampos Papamanthou, and Dawn Xiaodong Song. Preserving link privacy in social network based systems. In Proc. 20th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) . The Internet Society, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    De-anonymizing social networks

    Arvind Narayanan and Vitaly Shmatikov. De-anonymizing social networks. In Proc. 30th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) , pages 173–187. IEEE Com- puter Society, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    M. E. J. Newman and M. Girvan. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Reviewe E, 69(2):026113, 2004

    2004

  23. [31]

    Mark E. J. Newman. Community detection in networks: Modularity optimization and maximum likelihood are equivalent. CoRR, abs/1606.02319, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nguyen, Abdessamad Imine, and Micha¨ el Rusinowitch

    Hiep H. Nguyen, Abdessamad Imine, and Micha¨ el Rusinowitch. Detecting communi- ties under differential privacy. In Proc. 2016 ACM on Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES), pages 83–93. ACM Press, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Smooth sensitivity and sam- pling in private data analysis

    Kobbi Nissim, Sofya Raskhodnikova, and Adam Smith. Smooth sensitivity and sam- pling in private data analysis. In Proc. 39th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pages 75–84. ACM Press, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Community detection through likelihood optimization: In search of a sound model

    Liudmila Ostroumova Prokhorenkova and Alexey Tikhonov. Community detection through likelihood optimization: In search of a sound model. In Proc. 30th World Wide Web Conference (WWW) , pages 1498–1508. ACM Press, 2019. 33

    2019

  27. [35]

    Alessandra Sala, Xiaohan Zhao, Christo Wilson, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y. Zhao. Sharing graphs using differentially private graph models. In Proc. 11th ACM SIG- COMM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC) , pages 81–98. ACM Press, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Preserving differential privacy in degree-correlation based graph generation

    Yue Wang and Xintao Wu. Preserving differential privacy in degree-correlation based graph generation. Transaction on Data Privacy , 6(2):127–145, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    On learning cluster coefficient of private networks

    Yue Wang, Xintao Wu, Jun Zhu, and Yang Xiang. On learning cluster coefficient of private networks. Social Network Analysis and Mining , 3(4):925–938, 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Stochastic blockmodels: First steps

    Paul W.Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. Social Networks, 5(2):109–137, 1983

    1983

  31. [39]

    Differentially private network data release via structural inference

    Qian Xiao, Rui Chen, and Kian-Lee Tan. Differentially private network data release via structural inference. In Proc. 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) , pages 911–920. ACM Press, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Overlapping community detection at scale: a non- negative matrix factorization approach

    Jaewon Yang and Jure Leskovec. Overlapping community detection at scale: a non- negative matrix factorization approach. In Proc. 6th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) , pages 587–596. ACM Press, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    Defining and evaluating network communities based on ground-truth

    Jaewon Yang and Jure Leskovec. Defining and evaluating network communities based on ground-truth. Knowledge and Information Systems , 42(1):181–213, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    McAuley, and Jure Leskovec

    Jaewon Yang, Julian J. McAuley, and Jure Leskovec. Community detection in net- works with node attributes. In Proc. 13th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 1151–1156. IEEE Computer Society, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Procopiuc, Divesh Srivastava, and Xiaokui Xiao

    Jun Zhang, Graham Cormode, Cecilia M. Procopiuc, Divesh Srivastava, and Xiaokui Xiao. Private release of graph statistics using ladder functions. In Proc. 36th ACM International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD) , pages 731–745. ACM Press, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Information Diffusion in Social Networks , pages 146–163

    Dmitry Zinoviev. Information Diffusion in Social Networks , pages 146–163. 11 2011. A Distribution of degree and local clustering coeffi- cient Figure 3 shows the comparison of degree distributions (a–c) and distributions of local clustering coefficients (d–f) in terms of thecomple...

    2011

Pith tools

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