Efficient PageRank approximation via graph aggregation
Open accessAI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper introduces a graph-aggregation framework that approximates PageRank by computing a random walk over Web hosts rather than individual pages, then reconstructing page-level scores. On a large 2003 AltaVista crawl, the uniform intra-host variant achieved a Spearman rank correlation of 0.95 with PageRank and ran about 2.1 times faster.
Key findings
- The host-aggregated “U-model,” which uses a uniform distribution for intra-host jumps, produced rankings closely aligned with PageRank: Spearman correlation 0.95 and Pearson correlation 0.81 on a stratified sample of 1,298 pages.
- The linear fit between U-model and PageRank had a slope of 0.9851, though residuals were larger for pages with very high PageRank values.
- On a graph with over 1,446 million pages and almost 6,650 million links, PageRank took 12.5 hours while the U-model took 5.8 hours, a speedup factor of about 2.1.
- The host graph was much smaller: about 31 million unique hosts and 241 million host-to-host edges, roughly 2% of pages and 3.6% of page-to-page links.
Methods
- The method partitions pages into host classes, defines a class-level transition matrix from inter-host links, computes its principal eigenvector, and reconstructs a page-level distribution by combining host scores with intra-host distributions.
- Experiments used a September 2003 AltaVista crawl stored in AltaVista’s Connectivity Server, running on an Alpha server with 4 CPUs at 667 MHz and 32 GB of memory.
- Evaluation compared U-model scores with PageRank using a PageRank-stratified sample of 1,298 pages, reporting Pearson and Spearman correlations, a least-squares linear fit, residual analysis, and clock-time measurements.
Limitations
- The paper states that a task-oriented relevance evaluation was not performed, so it is unknown whether the small differences from PageRank help or hurt search ranking; it also notes that U-model may be less precise at the very high end of the PageRank scale and that its implementation was ad-hoc and non-optimized.
- The paper states that the sample was stratified by PageRank deciles rather than a simple random sample, and that Web IR lacks an agreed benchmark for assessing static link-based ranking measures.
- Evident from the text: the evaluation relies on correlation and regression rather than actual retrieval effectiveness, and the host-based partition with uniform intra-host jumps may not match real browsing behavior or logical site boundaries.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
The clock time required by a simplistic implementation of the method was less than half the time required by a highly optimized implementation of PageRank.
“The clock time required by a simplistic implementation of our method was less than half the time required by a highly optimized implementation of PageRank, implying that larger speedup factors are probably possible.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“The clock time required by a simplistic implementation of our method was less than half the time required by a highly optimized implementation of PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
- Findingown data
The experimental Web graph had about 31 million unique hosts, just over 2% of the number of pages.
“The number of unique hosts in this graph was about 31 million (just over 2% of the number of pages)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
On a Web graph containing over 1.4 billion pages and over 6.6 billion links from an AltaVista crawl in September 2003, the method produced a ranking with Spearman rank-order correlation of 0.95 with respect to PageRank.
“We experimented on a Web-graph containing over 1.4 billion pages and over 6.6 billion links from a crawl of the Web conducted by AltaVista in September 2003.We were able to produce a ranking that has Spearman rank-order correlation of 0.95 with respect to PageRank.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“In our experiments, based on a Web-graph containing over 1.4 billion pages and over 6.6 billion links from a crawl of the Web conducted by AltaVista, we are able to produce a ranking that has Spearman rank-order correlation (Snedecor and Cochran, 1989) of 0.95 with respect to PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Snedecor and Cochran, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
- Findingown data
The slope of the linear fit of PageRank on U-model is 0.9851, close to 1.0.
“Note that the slope of the fit, 0.9851, is close to 1.0 as hoped.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
A standard statistical test rejects with high confidence the hypothesis that U-model is statistically independent of PageRank.
“Given the amply large sample size and the high correlation, a standard statistical test rejects with high confidence the hypothesis that U-model is statistically independent of PageRank.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: PageRank values follow a power-law distribution, so the bulk of the population are pages with few or no inlinks.
- Rests on an assumption: Pages with low PageRank scores rarely appear as top ranking results for queries, so small fluctuations in their static scores are hardly noticed by search engine users.
- Findingreasoning
Our algorithm needs only two passes over the entire set of links: one when defining T and one when transforming γ into β.
“In contrast our algorithm needs only two passes over the entire set of links: the first when defining T (step 1), and the second when transforming γ into β (step 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Several data points are far from the regression line.
“However several data point are far from the regression line.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
In this sample U-model has Pearson correlation 0.81 with PageRank.
“In this sample U-model has Pearson correlation 0.81 with PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The resulting scores approximate PageRank: the ranking has Spearman rank-order correlation of 0.95 with respect to PageRank.
“Furthermore, we showed that the resulting scores indeed approximate PageRank: we were able to produce a ranking that has Spearman rank-order correlation of 0.95 with respect to PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
We achieved a speedup factor of 2.1.
“We achieved a speedup factor of 2.1, and predict that more careful implementations can achieve speedups that are closer to the ratio of the sizes of the graph.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The framework can approximate the PageRank distribution by setting the classes according to the set of pages on each Web host.
“In particular, our framework can approximate the well-known PageRank distribution by setting the classes according to the set of pages on each Web host.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The algorithm scales well.
“Since the Web's host graph is significantly smaller than the Web's page graph (by factors of 20 and beyond in the number of edges), the algorithm scales well.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The Web's host graph is significantly smaller than the Web's page graph, by factors of 20 and beyond in the number of edges.
“Since the Web's host graph is significantly smaller than the Web's page graph (by factors of 20 and beyond in the number of edges), the algorithm scales well.”
- Also stated in: § 2.3. The host-graph of the web · plain
“Our algorithm, described in the next section, makes use of the fact that the number of hosts on the Web, and the number of links between pages of different hosts, are significantly lower than the corresponding numbers of pages and interconnecting links.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Ruhl et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Kamvar et al., 2003b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § 2.3. The host-graph of the web · plain
- Interpretationreasoning
The method obtains only an approximation of PageRank rather than the exact PageRank values.
“Thus we obtain only an approximation of PageRank rather than the exact PageRank values.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
There exists a unique positive L1-normalized principal eigenvector of ST, corresponding to the stationary distribution of the modified random surfer model T.
“In particular, there exists a unique positive and L 1 -normalized principal eigenvector of ST, that corresponds to the stationary probability distribution of our modified random surfer model, T .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The original page-to-page transition matrix T is irreducible and aperiodic.
- Premisecitation
Intra-host linkage patterns are more regular and predictable than inter-host linkage patterns, due to the prevalent use of templates in Web sites.
“Furthermore, intra-host linkage patterns are more regular and predictable than inter-host linkage patterns, due to the prevalent use of templates in Web sites (Bar-Yossef and Rajagopalan, 2002).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bar-Yossef and Rajagopalan, 2002 source
- Interpretationreasoning
The n-dimensional stationary vector α can be derived from the m-dimensional host stationary vector α by dividing the probability assigned to each host by the number of hosted pages: α(p) = α_h(p)/|h(p)|.
“Intra-host symmetry considerations imply that (the n-dimensional) α can be derived from α by simply dividing the probability assigned to each host by the number of hosted pages.Formally, α( p) = αh(p) /|h( p)|.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Representing intra-host random browsing by a host-specific distribution may enable the alternative random walk to not stray very far from PageRank.
“Thus, representing intra-host random browsing by some host-specific distribution may enable our alternative random walk to not stray very far from PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The vector β = αST satisfies β ST = β.
“We claim that β αST satisfies Eq. ( 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The original page-to-page transition matrix T is irreducible and aperiodic.
- Premisecitation
BlockRank accelerates PageRank computations by selecting an initial distribution vector v from which fewer Power iterations are needed until convergence than from the uniform distribution.
“BlockRank is a method that accelerates PageRank computations by selecting an initial distribution vector v from which (empirically) fewer Power iterations are needed until convergence, as compared with Power iterations starting from the uniform distribution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kamvar et al. (2003b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Our approach is speedier than BlockRank.
“While it is clear that our approach is speedier than BlockRank, the artifacts of both algorithms are different as we do not end up calculating PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The U-model approximates PageRank very closely, especially in the correlation between the ranks induced by these measures.
“We show that U-model approximates PageRank very closely, especially if one considers the correlation between the ranks induced by these measures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
One can compute αS directly from α as (αS)(p) = π_h(p)(p) • α_h(p).
“However, there is no need to explicitly compute α, since one can easily compute αS directly from α: (αS)( p) = π h( p) ( p) • αh(p) .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The vector v of BlockRank is closely related to the vector γ produced by our algorithm when T represents PageRank and each π_Hi is the intra-host PageRank vector of H_i.
“The vector v of BlockRank is closely related to the vector γ produced by our algorithm when (1) T, the original random walk, represents PageRank and (2) each distribution π H i is set to be the intra-host PageRank vector of H i .”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kamvar et al. (2003b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
The compaction significantly reduces the memory requirements of computations for large Web graphs.
“In particular, this compaction significantly reduces the memory requirements of the computations that arise when dealing with Web graphs of large crawls.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
U-model can be used as an effective approximation for PageRank in relevance ranking.
“This suggests that U-model can be used as an effective approximation for PageRank in relevance ranking.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
We approximated PageRank with a random walk flavor in which departures from a page consist of a two-stage process: first a random transition to another page of the same host, then a PageRank-like step from that page.
“We approximated PageRank with a random walk flavor in which departures from a page consist of a two stage process: first, a random transition to another page of the same host, and then a PageRank-like step from that page.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Whereas PageRank requires repeated scans of the Web-graph's links, most computations required by our transformation involve scanning the edges of the Web's host-graph.
“Whereas PageRank requires repeated scans of the Web-graph's links, most of the computations required by our transformation involve scanning the edges of the Web's host-graph.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The framework approximates the behavior of a given random walk on the Web's graph in a scalable manner by performing most calculations on a more compact representation of the graph obtained by aggregating multiple pages onto a single node.
“The framework approximates the behavior of a given random walk on the Web's graph in a scalable manner, by performing most of its calculations on a more compact representation of the graph-a representation that follows from aggregating multiple pages onto a single node.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 18
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe experimental Web graph had 241 million host-to-host edges, 3.6% of the number of page-to-page links.
“with 241 million host-to-host edges (3.6% of the number of page-to-page links).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe experimental Web graph contained over 1446 million pages and almost 6650 million links.
“Our experimental setup, presented in Section 4, exhibits similar ratios: we used a Webgraph containing over 1446 million pages with almost 6650 million links.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe sample contained 1298 pages distributed over the full range of PageRank values.
“The resulting sample contained 1298 pages distributed over the full range of PageRank values.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: PageRank values follow a power-law distribution, so the bulk of the population are pages with few or no inlinks.
- Rests on an assumption: Pages with low PageRank scores rarely appear as top ranking results for queries, so small fluctuations in their static scores are hardly noticed by search engine users.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataComputing PageRank in this setting required 12.5 h, while computing the U-model scores took 5.8 h, a speedup factor of about 2.1.
“Computing PageRank in this setting required 12.5 h., while computing the U-model scores took 5.8 h.(a speedup factor of about 2.1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe graph has about 31 million unique hosts (just over 2% of pages) and 241 million host-to-host edges (3.6% of page-to-page links).
“The number of unique hosts in this graph is about 31 million (just over 2% of the number of pages), with 241 million host-to-host edges (3.6% of the number of page-to-page links).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataMost standardized residuals from the fit are very small, with more residuals close to zero than expected under a standard Gaussian distribution.
“Most of standardized residuals from the fit are very small.Indeed, there are more residuals close to zero than expected if the residuals are compared to a standard Gaussian distribution.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe Spearman rank-order correlation between U-model and PageRank is 0.95, considerably higher than the Pearson correlation of 0.81.
“In fact, the Spearman rankorder correlation (Snedecor and Cochran, 1989) between U-model and PageRank is 0.95, considerably higher than the Pearson correlation of 0.81.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Snedecor and Cochran, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe experiments use a Web-graph containing over 1446 million pages with almost 6650 million links, from an AltaVista crawl in September 2003.
“Our experiments are based on a Web-graph containing over 1446 million pages with almost 6650 million links, from a crawl of the Web conducted by AltaVista in September 2003.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe model is much less sensitive to changes in the internal organization of hosts.
“Our model is much less sensitive to changes in the internal organization of hosts, which might be an advantage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationRuhl et al. (2001) reported that in a 604 million page snapshot from August 2000, the host graph had 10.37 million hosts and 5540 million page links induced less than 263 million host-graph links, below 5% of the original number.
“They report that the number of hosts in that snapshot was merely 10.37 million.Furthermore, the 5540 million links between Web pages induced less than 263 million links (below 5% of the original number) in the host-graph.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Ruhl et al., 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataLarger speedup factors are probably possible.
“implying that larger speedup factors are probably possible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenPages on a given host will generally be assigned different scores.
“Nevertheless, it ultimately still derives static scores with page granularity, that is, pages on a given host will generally be assigned different scores.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe algorithm calculates a distribution at page granularity while performing eigenvector calculations at host granularity.
“We have thus managed to calculate a distribution in page-granularity while performing eigenvector calculations in host-granularity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataOutlying points with large residuals tend to correspond to pages with large PageRank values, suggesting U-Model could be a less precise approximation of PageRank in the very high end of the scale.
“However, the outlying points (with large residuals) tend to correspond to pages with large PageRank values, suggesting that U-Model could be a less precise approximation of PageRank in the very high end of the scale.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone givenIn general, the alternative random walk is not mathematically equivalent to the original random walk.
“Note that in general, this alternative walk is not mathematically equivalent to the original random walk T.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationKamvar et al. (2003b) reported that in a crawl containing 70 million pages with over 600 million interconnecting links, more than 93% of the links connected same-host pages.
“Kamvar et al. (2003b) report that in a crawl containing 70 million pages with over 600 million interconnecting links, more than 93% of the links connected same-host pages.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kamvar et al., 2003b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenFor many choices of the original walk, classes, and class distributions, the two random walks may result in very different stationary distributions.
“Furthermore, for many choices of T, H 1 , . . ., H m and π 1 , . . ., π m , the two random walks may result in very different stationary distributions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSame-host sources and destinations are indistinguishable in ST S, so iterations to find α can be carried out using m×m transition matrices and m-dimensional probability vectors.
“Therefore, same-host sources/destinations are indistinguishable and hence the iterations required to find a can be carried out using m × m transition matrices and m-dimensional probability vectors, whose columns correspond to the distinct hosts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe stationary distribution of the alternative walk can be derived from the principal eigenvector of an m by m stochastic matrix, which is generally less expensive than computing the principal eigenvector of the n by n stochastic matrix of the original walk.
“In what follows, we show that the stationary distribution of T can be derived from the principal eigenvector of a m × m stochastic matrix (recall that m is the number of classes), which is generally less expensive than computing the principal eigenvector of the n × n stochastic matrix T.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenFor any irreducible, aperiodic n×n stochastic matrix T, both ST and ST S are irreducible and aperiodic and have uniquely defined positive normalized principal eigenvectors.
“Furthermore, for any irreducible, aperiodic n × n stochastic matrix T, both ST and ST S are also irreducible and aperiodic, and so both matrices have uniquely defined (positive, normalized) principal eigenvectors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The original page-to-page transition matrix T is irreducible and aperiodic.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningMoving to smaller graphs such as the host graph may enable connectivity data to fit in the RAM of a single machine, so our algorithm will have to perform only two passes over the full list of links versus 25-40 passes for standard PageRank.
“Moving to smaller graphs such as the host graph may enable the connectivity data to once again fit in the RAM of a single machine.In such a case our algorithm will have to perform only two (inevitably slow) passes over the full list of links, versus 25-40 passes for standard PageRank.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The standard power-iteration computation of PageRank converges in a few dozen iterations, and each iteration requires one pass over the complete list of links for the entire Web graph.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe power iterations part in our algorithm is linear in the number of links of the host-graph, which is typically much smaller (maybe by a factor of 20) than the number of links in the page-graph.
“The power iterations part in our algorithm is linear in the number of links of the host-graph, which typically is much smaller (maybe by a factor of 20), than the number of links in the page-graph.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe PageRank computations used robust and optimized infrastructure of the connectivity server, while the modified algorithm was written in an ad-hoc, non-optimized manner.
“It should be noted that the PageRank computations use the robust and optimized infrastructure of the connectivity server, while our modified algorithm was written in an ad-hoc, non-optimized manner.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIn BlockRank, teleportations between hosts are uniform over all hosts, whereas in our approach teleportations land on each host in proportion to the number of pages on that host.
“The differences between v and the appropriate γ flavor concern the definition of teleportations in the random walk over the hosts: in BlockRank, teleportations between hosts are uniform over all hosts, whereas in our approach, it follows from Eq. ( 2) that teleportations land on each host in proportion to the number of pages on that host.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kamvar et al. (2003b)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe method can be defined in terms of any equivalence relation that partitions the set of Web pages.
“One should note, however, that the method can be defined in terms of any equivalence relation that partitions the set of Web pages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone givenThe method changes the semantics of random browsing on the Web by decoupling intra-host and inter-host steps.
“As defined in Section 3, our method changes the semantics of random browsing on the Web by decoupling intra-host and inter-host steps.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningOur model is almost insensitive to changes in the internal organization of hosts; a reorganization that modifies linkage patterns between pages on a host might change relative ranking of those pages but will have much less effect on pages outside the host, since the weight of the host is uniformly distributed over all its pages.
“One possible advantage of our model is that it is almost insensitive to changes in the internal organization of hosts.A reorganization that modifies the linkage patterns between the pages on a given host might change the relative ranking of these pages, but will have much less effect on pages outside the host, since the”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The original page-to-page transition matrix T is irreducible and aperiodic.
“We assume that T is irreducible and aperiodic, and so T is ergodic and has a well-defined stationary distribution, namely its principal eigenvector.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The standard PageRank transition matrix satisfies the irreducibility and aperiodicity conditions.
“Note that the standard PageRank transition matrix satisfies these conditions.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each Web page has at least one outgoing link.
“Note that this implicitly assumes that each Web page has at least one outgoing link.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The set of distributions π_h are given, e.g. as by-products of the build process of the connectivity database.
“This analysis assumes that the set of distributions π h are given, e.g. as by-products of the build process of the connectivity database, which is certainly the case for the experiments presented in the next section.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The standard power-iteration computation of PageRank converges in a few dozen iterations, and each iteration requires one pass over the complete list of links for the entire Web graph.
“The standard power-iteration computation of PageRank converges in a few dozen iterations.Each iteration requires one pass over the complete list of links for the entire Web graph.”
The paper relies on this without support.
PageRank values follow a power-law distribution, so the bulk of the population are pages with few or no inlinks.
“However, we did not take a simple random sample since, by virtue of the power-law distribution of PageRank, the bulk of the population are pages with few or no inlinks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Pages with low PageRank scores rarely appear as top ranking results for queries, so small fluctuations in their static scores are hardly noticed by search engine users.
“Furthermore, as a consequence of their low scores, these pages will rarely appear as the top ranking results for queries, and so small fluctuations in their static scores will hardly be noticed by search engine users.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Sampling intervals are not deciles
MinorThe paper says it sampled within PageRank deciles, but the first two intervals in its schedule contain 1,000 and 9,000 ranks, respectively. Deciles of the ranked population would contain equal numbers of pages.
“we sorted pages according to PageRank and then uniformly sampled within each decile according to the schedule in Table 1.”
“| | 1 | 1000 | 0.2 | | | 1001 | 10000 | 0.02 |”
Sampling schedule extends beyond the available pages
MinorThe schedule lists an ending rank of 14,470,000,000, but the paper says only 1,446 million pages were available to sample.
“| | 1000000001 | 14470000000 0.00000002 |”
“To assess the relation between PageRank and its approximation, the U-model, we sampled from the available 1446 million pages.”
Cites
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135 · see citing works
The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998) · Computer Networks and ISDN Systems · doi:10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00110-x · Cited by 16,004 · see citing works
Broder, A., Kumar, R., Maghoul, F., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., Stata, R., Tomkins, A., & Wiener, J. (2000) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/s1389-1286(00)00083-9 · Cited by 2,810 · see citing works
Self-citationBroder, A. (2002) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/792550.792552 · Cited by 1,944 · see citing works
Self-citationHaveliwala, T. H. (2002) · Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/511446.511513 · Cited by 1,567 · see citing works
Scaling personalized web search
Jeh, G., & Widom, J. (2003) · Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '03 · doi:10.1145/775152.775191 · Cited by 1,195 · see citing works
The Web as a Graph: Measurements, Models, and Methods
Kleinberg, J. M., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., Rajagopalan, S., & Tomkins, A. (1999) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-48686-0_1 · Cited by 1,027 · see citing works
Efficient crawling through URL ordering
Cho, J. J., García-Molina, H., & Page, L. (1998) · Computer Networks and ISDN Systems · doi:10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00108-1 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Gallager, R. G. (1997) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1038/sj.jors.2600329 · Cited by 691 · see citing works
Gallager, R. G. (1996) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2329-1 · Cited by 494 · see citing works
Extrapolation methods for accelerating PageRank computations
Kamvar, S. D., Haveliwala, T. H., Manning, C. D., & Golub, G. H. (2003) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/775152.775190 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
The Intelligent surfer: Probabilistic Combination of Link and Content Information in PageRank
Richardson, M., & Domingos, P. (2001) · Cited by 356 · see citing works
Matrix Computation for Engineers and Scientists
Jennings, A. (1977) · doi:10.2307/3617426 · Cited by 309
Matrix Computation for Engineers and Scientists
Jennings, A. (1977) · UCLA Biblioteca de Ingenieria Civil · Cited by 294 · see citing works
(1999) · Cited by 293 · see citing works
Stable algorithms for link analysis
Ng, A. Y., Zheng, A. X., & Jordan, M. I. (2001) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/383952.384003 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Template detection via data mining and its applications
Bar-Yossef, Z., & Rajagopalan, S. (2002) · Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/511446.511522 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Adaptive methods for the computation of PageRank
Kamvar, S. D., Haveliwala, T. H., & Golub, G. H. (2004) · Linear Algebra and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.laa.2003.12.008 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Adaptive on-line page importance computation
Abiteboul, S., Preda, M., & Cobéna, G. (2003) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/775152.775192 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
The Connectivity Server: fast access to linkage information on the Web
Bharat, K. A., Broder, A., Henzinger, M. R., et al. (1998) · Computer Networks and ISDN Systems · doi:10.1016/s0169-7552(98)80047-0 · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Self-citationAn Analytical Comparison of Approaches to Personalizing PageRank
Haveliwala, T. H., Kamvar, S. D., & Jeh, G. (2003) · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Who links to whom: mining linkage between Web sites
Bharat, K. A., Chang, B.-W., Henzinger, M. R., et al. (2002) · doi:10.1109/icdm.2001.989500 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Using PageRank to Characterize Web Structure
Pandurangan, G., Raghavan, P., & Upfal, E. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45655-4_36 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Measuring index quality using random walks on the Web
Henzinger, M. R., Heydon, A., Mitzenmacher, M., et al. (1999) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/s1389-1286(99)00016-x · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Scaling personalized web search
Jeh, G., & Widom, J. (2003) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/775189.775191 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Amitay, E., Carmel, D., Darlow, A., Lempel, R., & Soffer, A. (2003) · ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT) · doi:10.1145/900051.900060 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Self-citationUsing PageRank to Characterize Web Structure
Pandurangan, G., Raghavan, P., & Upfal, E. (2006) · Internet Mathematics · doi:10.1080/15427951.2006.10129114 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Link Evolution: Analysis and Algorithms
Chien, S., Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Simon, D., & Sivakumar, D. (2004) · Internet Mathematics · doi:10.1080/15427951.2004.10129090 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
A new paradigm for ranking pages on the world wide web
Tomlin, J. A. (2003) · doi:10.1145/775152.775202 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
I/O-efficient techniques for computing pagerank
Chen, Y.-Y., Gan, Q., & Suel, T. (2002) · Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management · doi:10.1145/584792.584882 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Tsoi, A. C., Morini, G., Scarselli, F., et al. (2003) · doi:10.1145/775152.775203 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Adaptive on-line page importance computation
Abiteboul, S., Preda, M., & Cobéna, G. (2003) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/775189.775192 · Cited by 30
Template detection via data mining and its applications
Bar-Yossef, Z., & Rajagopalan, S. (2002) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/511519.511522 · Cited by 26
Voting Model for Ranking Web Pages.
Lifantsev, M. (2000) · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Amitay, E., Carmel, D., Darlow, A., et al. (2003) · Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia - HYPERTEXT '03 · doi:10.1145/900058.900060
I/O-efficient techniques for computing pagerank
Chen, Y.-Y., Gan, Q., & Suel, T. (2002) · Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management - CIKM '02 · doi:10.1145/584879.584882
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Lee HC (2002) When the hyperlinked environment is perturbed. In: Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web Graph (WAW), Vancouver, Canada
- Snedecor GW and Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, 8th edition
- Upstill T, Craswell N and Hawking D (2003) Predicting fame and fortune: pagerank or indegree?. In: Proc. 8th Australasian Document Computing Symposium, Canberra, Australia
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bar-Yossef, Z., Broder, A., Kumar, R., & Tomkins, A. (2004) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/988672.988716 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Self-citationThe PageRank Problem, Multiagent Consensus, and Web Aggregation: A Systems and Control Viewpoint
Ishii, H., & Tempo, R. (2014) · IEEE Control Systems · doi:10.1109/mcs.2014.2308672 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“This property means that pages are often linked within the same domains/directories (for example, organizations, universities/companies, departments, et c) [10], [44].”
BackgroundA web aggregation approach for distributed randomized PageRank algorithmsPreprint
Ishii, H., Tempo, R., & Bai, E. (2012) · Cited by 80 · see citing works
A Web Aggregation Approach for Distributed Randomized PageRank Algorithms
Ishii, H., Tempo, R., & Bai, E.-W. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2012.2190161 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“Similar observations are reported in the [10] mentioned above.”
InfluentialChen, M., Yang, Q., & Tang, X. (2007) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Hierarchical Link Analysis for Ranking Web Data
Delbru, R., Toupikov, N., Catasta, M., et al. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13489-0_16 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“Recent works [9–14] exploit the hierarchical structure of distributed environments and of the Web.”
BackgroundLocal approximation of pagerank and reverse pagerank
Bar-Yossef, Z., & Mashiach, L.-T. (2008) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/1458082.1458122 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“There is a large body of work on PageRank computation, varying from centralized algorithms (e.g., [22, 5]), to parallel algorithms (e.g., [24, 23]), to decentralized P2P algorithms (e.g., [34, 28]).”
BackgroundA Survey on Personalized PageRank Computation Algorithms
Park, S., Lee, W., Choe, B., et al. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2952653 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
On rank correlation in information retrieval evaluation
Melucci, M. (2007) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/1273221.1273223 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
A two-step matrix splitting iteration for computing PageRank
Gu, C., Xie, F., & Zhang, K. (2014) · Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1016/j.cam.2014.09.022 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“Some other acceleration techniques are also available, including the rational extrapolation [10], aggregation/disaggregation [11, 17, 26], lumping [18, 27], and those mentioned in the survey papers [8, 25].”
MethodRavazzi, C., Dabbene, F., Lagoa, C. M., & Proskurnikov, A. V. (2021) · IEEE Control Systems · doi:10.1109/mcs.2021.3092810 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Graph-based learning for segmentation of 3D ultrasound images
Chang, H., Chen, Z., Huang, Q., Shi, J., & Li, X. (2014) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2014.05.092 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
MNav: A Markov Model-Based Web Site Navigability Measure
Zhou, Y., LEUNG, H. K. N., & Winoto, P. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2007.70743 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“These techniques include those that save time by reducing the work per iteration [42] and those that aim at reducing the total number of iterations [43], [44], [45].”
MethodLocal approximation of PageRank and reverse PageRank
Bar-Yossef, Z., & Mashiach, L.-T. (2008) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/1390334.1390545 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“[28, 30, 8, 1, 39, 17]), to parallel algorithms (e.”
Mitliagkas, I., Borokhovich, M., Dimakis, A. G., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment · doi:10.14778/2757807.2757812 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Convergence of Distributed Randomized PageRank Algorithms
Zhao, W., Chen, H.-F., & Fang, H. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2013.2264553 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“See al so [1], [2], [4], and [13] among others.”
BackgroundParreira, J. X., Castillo, C., Donato, D., Michel, S., & Weikum, G. (2007) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-007-0057-y · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“[17], where they have presented a graph aggregation method in which pages are partitioned into hosts and the stationary distribution is computed in a two-step approach,”
MethodDynamic centrality measures for cattle trade networks
Hoscheit, P., Anthony, E., & Vergu, E. (2021) · Applied Network Science · doi:10.1007/s41109-021-00368-5 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
CDNs Content Outsourcing via Generalized Communities
Katsaros, D., Pallis, G., Stamos, K., et al. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.92 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“However, without auxiliary text information, both PageRank and HITS have limited success in identifying Web page communities [13].”
MethodAlgorithm Engineering for Large Data Sets
Dementiev, R. (2007) · Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Endorsement deduction and ranking in social networks
Pérez‐Rosés, H., Sebé, F., & Ribó, J. M. (2015) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2015.08.018 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“Additionally, it can be efficiently approximated [2, 5], and can be computed in a parallel or distributed framework [31, 44].”
BackgroundDistributed randomized PageRank computation based on web aggregation
Ishii, H., Tempo, R., Bai, E., et al. (2009) · doi:10.1109/cdc.2009.5399514 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“In doing so, we incorporate the following three ideas: First, we aggregate the web so that the number of nodes becomes smaller [4].”
MethodRanking patterns, an application to refrigerants
Restrepo, G., Brüggemann, R., Weckert, M., et al. (2008) · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Weighted Rank Correlation in Information Retrieval Evaluation
Melucci, M. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04769-5_7 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Centrality Measures in Complex Networks: A SurveyPreprint
Saxena, A., & Iyengar, S. R. S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2011.07190 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
“proposed a framework to compute random walk based pagerank values for web networks [158].”
MethodProskurnikov, A. V., Ravazzi, C., & Dabbene, F. (2018) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2018.03.001 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Makkar, A. (2022) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.103658 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
What Does Affect the Correlation Among Evaluation Measures?
Ferro, N. (2017) · ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. · doi:10.1145/3106371 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Generally speaking, correlation analysis is not limited to comparing evaluation measures, but it is also widely used in many other areas of IR as a means for comparing and assessing alternatives, ranging from Web page crawling [6] and ranking [8], simulation of implicit user feedback [92], resource selection in distri…”
MethodIshihara, T., Hotta, K., Higo, Y., et al. (2013) · doi:10.1109/wcre.2013.6671322 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
“This approximate calculation is widely used [5].”
Web Page Rank Prediction with PCA and EM Clustering
Zacharouli, P., Titsias, M. K., & Vazirgiannis, M. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-95995-3_9 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“There has also been work in adaptive computation of PageRank [11, 14] or even estimation of PageRank scores [12].”
BackgroundSearching Web Data: an Entity Retrieval Model
Examiner, E., & Silvestri, F. (2010) · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Visual Analytics and Interactive Technologies
Zhang, Q., Segall, R. S., & Cao, M. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-102-7 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Cipolla, S., Fiore, C. D., & Tudisco, F. (2017) · Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra · doi:10.13001/1081-3810.3343 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“, extrapolation [6, 7, 9, 28] or structural adaptive methods [25, 26, 27]).”
BackgroundEpasto, A., Feldman, J., Lattanzi, S., Leonardi, S., & Mirrokni, V. (2014) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2566486.2568025 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“Broder et al. [7] applied similar techniques to speed up the computation of PageRank on web-sites.”
MethodEvaluation of Iterative Pagerank Algorithm for Web Page Ranking
Zambuk, F. U., Gital, A. Y., Boukari, S., Jauro, F., & Chiroma, H. (2019) · International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer and Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT) · doi:10.1109/iceeccot46775.2019.9114728 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“Sine Data is the issue, [21-24]suggested techniques for compressing data and others like [25-27] proposed an I/O-efficient implementation of PageRank.”
MethodClustering Algorithms for Anti-Money Laundering Using Graph Theory and Social Network Analysis
Awasthi, A. K. (2012) · Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) · Cited by 6 · see citing works
A Survey of State Management in Big Data Processing SystemsPreprint
To, Q.-C., Soto, J. C., & Markl, V. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.01596 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“e steps to converge to the final solution. Due to big state sizes, some iterative algorithms use approximate state with small sizes [1, 2, 42, 52] or approximate algorithms with fewer iterative steps [16, 65, 77, 88, 113, 119, 120] to boost performance. Usually, these approximate algorithms sacrifice accuracy for perf…”
MethodAn Improved Method for Efficient PageRank Estimation
Sakakura, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., Amagasa, T., et al. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10085-2_19 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Triangular and skew-symmetric splitting method for numerical solutions of Markov chains
Wen, C., Huang, T., & Wang, C. (2011) · Computers & Mathematics with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2011.09.041 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Towards a Common Framework for Peer-to-Peer Web Retrieval
Aberer, K., & Wu, J. Y. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31842-2_15 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“In [12] the Web graph is aggregated at the Web site level in order to improve the efficiency of PageRank computation.”
BackgroundMethodDynamic Information Mining Based Vaccine Distribution Strategy
Liang, J., Yao, H., Wang, J., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1109/uv56588.2022.10185518 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Approaches to measure class importance in Knowledge Graphs
Fernández-Álvarez, D., Frey, J., Gayo, J. E. L., Gayo-Avello, D., & Hellmann, S. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0252862 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“An illustrative use of BlockRank-like strategies is HostRank [60], which was thought to be applied over web structures.”
MethodAnalysing search engine optimization techniques for a full stack web application
Shivani, G., Mutreja, P., & Nagrath, P. (2021) · IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · doi:10.1088/1757-899x/1022/1/012097 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“[8] According to another study, PageRank algorithm, uses the concept of in-links and out-links to rank the webpages.”
MethodThe Power of AI in IoT : Cognitive IoT-based Scheme for Web Spam Detection
Makkar, A., Kumar, N., & Guizani, M. (2019) · IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) · doi:10.1109/ssci44817.2019.9002885 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“It results in a better approximation of PageRank scores [12].”
BackgroundGagg: A Graph Aggregation Operator
Maali, F., Campinas, S., & Decker, S. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18818-8_30 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A New GMRES( m ) Method for Markov Chains
Pu, B.-Y., Huang, T., & Wen, C. X. (2013) · Mathematical Problems in Engineering · doi:10.1155/2013/206375 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A new approach for aggregated PageRank computation via distributed randomized algorithms
Ishii, H., Tempo, R., & Bai, E. (2011) · doi:10.1109/cdc.2011.6160880 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Aggregation for PageRank has also been explored to compute acceptable approximation in [16] by classical methods in the Markov chain literature and in [4] through extensive simulation.”
MethodTowards an Objective Assessment of Centrality Measures in Reputation Systems
von der Weth, C., & Böhm, K. (2007) · IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC) · doi:10.1109/cec-eee.2007.100 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Introduction: A perspective on Web Information Retrieval
Melucci, M., & Hawking, D. (2006) · Information Retrieval · doi:10.1007/s10791-006-7145-2 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
PageRank Computation via Web Aggregation in Distributed Randomized Algorithms
Suzuki, A., & Ishii, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes · doi:10.1109/cdc40024.2019.9029680 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Aggregation-based computation of PageRank has been studied, for example, in [14], [22] using classical methods in Markov chains and in [3] via extensive simulations.”
MethodA Local Method for ObjectRank Estimation
Sakakura, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., Amagasa, T., et al. (2013) · doi:10.1145/2539150.2539177 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“[5] propose a method for estimating PageRank scores by graph aggregation.”
MethodA Framework for Web Page Rank Prediction
Voudigari, E., Pavlopoulos, J., & Vazirgiannis, M. (2011) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23960-1_29 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“There has also been work in adaptive computation of PageRank ([8], [11]) or even estimation of PageRank scores [7].”
BackgroundTopical Host Reputation for Lightweight Url Classification
Kołcz, A., Hulten, G., & Szymański, J. (2010) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Laplacian Powers for Graph-Based Semi-Supervised Learning
Bautista, E. (2019) · doi:10.70675/3544ca3ez14c1z4750z82eaz781dc4646030 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Efficient PageRank Computation via Distributed Algorithms with Web ClusteringPreprint
Suzuki, A., & Ishii, H. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.09979 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Such studies can be found, for example, in [21], [37] using classical methods in Markov chains and in [5] via extensive simulations.”
MethodParameter Estimation in a Stochastic System Model for PageRank
Clifton, C. E., & Pasik-Duncan, B. (2015) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611974072.59 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Important contributions have focused on improving the quality of rankings via topic-dependent or “personalized” PageRank [6], [13], as well improving the efficiency of PageRank computation using Monte Carlo methods [2], [23], extrapolation and adaptive methods [15], [16], and aggregation methods [5], [8], [11], [17],…”
MethodSubgraph rank: PageRank for subgraph-centric distributed graph processing
Badam, N. C., & Simmhan, Y. L. (2014) · International Conference on Management of Data · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Chapter 8 Search Engines and Rank Correlation
Melucci, M. (2012) · Library and information science · doi:10.1108/s1876-0562(2012)002012a010 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
World Wide Web, Graph Structure
(2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_60763 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Towards the Notion of Typical Documents in Large Collections of Documents
Kłopotek, M. A., Wierzchoń, S. T., Ciesielski, K., et al. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-102-7.ch001 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Using the ProT Nordic Web Dataset
Ågren, O. (2011) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Predicting Web Page StatusPreprint
Pant, G., & Srinivasan, P. (2008) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1186962 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Particle Swarm Optimization Based Multiobjective Rank Aggregation
Parveen, S., & Chauhan, R. K. (2022) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-16-7985-8_23
Deriving Highly Efficient Implementations of Parallel PageRank
van Strien, B., Rietveld, K. F. D., & Wijshoff, H. A. G. (2017) · doi:10.1109/icppw.2017.26
“Similarly, methods to approximate the PageRank values have been proposed, like in [7].”
MethodOrdering Thinking in Chemistry
Restrepo, G. (2015) · BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-1-68108-198-4.50002-3
Recursive Parameter Estimation
Chen, H.-F., & Zhao, W. (2014) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b17078-6
Other Problems Reducible to Parameter Estimation
Chen, H.-F., & Zhao, W. (2014) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/b17078-9
Haque, R. (2012) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo)
World Wide Web, Graph Structure
Adamic, L. A. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1800-9_208
Mathematics for Classical Information Retrieval: Roots and Applications
Alimohammadi, D., & Bolin, M. K. (2010)
Mathematics for Classical Information Retrieval
Alimohammadi, D., & Bolin, M. K. (2010) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska)
Finding, extracting and exploiting structure in text and hypertext
Ågren, O. (2009) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
World Wide Web, Graph Structure
Adamic, L. A. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_591
- Authors
- Broder, A. Z., Lempel, R., Maghoul, F., & Pedersen, J.
- Affiliations
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- IBM Research - Haifa (IL)
- Yahoo (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lempel, R.
- Venue
- Information Retrieval
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-138
- ISSN
- 1386-4564 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7659
- OpenAlex
- W2019722551
- Semantic Scholar
- 43a3dc31a38bc94850da3a44699990393b864611
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 16.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Information Retrieval (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- graph aggregation, random walks, stationary distribution, web graph, vertex partition, web page ranking, computational efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review