Analysis of large graphs is critical to the ongoing growth of search engines and social networks. One class of queries centers around node affinity, often quantified by random-walk distances between node pairs, including hitting time, commute time, and personalized PageRank (PPR).

Despite the potential of these "metrics," they are rarely, if ever, used in practice, largely due to extremely high computational costs. In this paper, we investigate methods to scalably and efficiently compute random-walk distances, by "embedding" graphs and distances into points and distances in geometric coordinate spaces.

We show that while existing graph coordinate systems (GCS) can accurately estimate shortest path distances, they produce significant errors when embedding random-walk distances.

Based on our observations, we propose a new graph embedding system that explicitly accounts for per-node graph properties that affect random walk. Extensive experiments on a range of graphs show that our new approach can accurately estimate both symmetric and asymmetric random-walk distances.

Once a graph is embedded, our system can answer queries between any two nodes in 8 microseconds, orders of magnitude faster than existing methods. Finally, we show that our system produces estimates that can replace ground truth in applications with minimal impact on application output.

## Another publication from the same category: Machine Learning and Data Science

### Drawing Sound Conclusions from Noisy Judgments

The quality of a search engine is typically evaluated using hand-labeled data sets, where the labels indicate the relevance of documents to queries. Often the number of labels needed is too large to be created by the best annotators, and so less accurate labels (e.g. from crowdsourcing) must be used. This introduces errors in the labels, and thus errors in standard precision metrics (such as P@k and DCG); the lower the quality of the judge, the more errorful the labels, consequently the more inaccurate the metric. We introduce equations and algorithms that can adjust the metrics to the values they would have had if there were no annotation errors.

This is especially important when two search engines are compared by comparing their metrics. We give examples where one engine appeared to be statistically significantly better than the other, but the effect disappeared after the metrics were corrected for annotation error. In other words the evidence supporting a statistical difference was illusory, and caused by a failure to account for annotation error.

**Keywords**

**Categories**