BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Corinna Coupette

Corinna Coupette contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Information Theorymath.ITMachine LearningSocial and Information NetworksComputation and LanguageComputational Complexitycs.CYData Structures and AlgorithmsDiscrete MathematicsDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingSoftware Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
11topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Differentially Describing Groups of Graphs

How does neural connectivity in autistic children differ from neural connectivity in healthy children or autistic youths? What patterns in global trade networks are shared across classes of goods, and how do these patterns change over time? Answering questions like these requires us to differentially describe groups of graphs: Given a set of graphs and a partition of these graphs into groups, discover what graphs in one group have in common, how they systematically differ from graphs in other groups, and how multiple groups of graphs are related. We refer to this task as graph group analysis, which seeks to describe similarities and differences between graph groups by means of statistically significant subgraphs. To perform graph group analysis, we introduce Gragra, which uses maximum entropy modeling to identify a non-redundant set of subgraphs with statistically significant associations to one or more graph groups. Through an extensive set of experiments on a wide range of synthetic and real-world graph groups, we confirm that Gragra works well in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Graph Similarity Description: How Are These Graphs Similar?

How do social networks differ across platforms? How do information networks change over time? Answering questions like these requires us to compare two or more graphs. This task is commonly treated as a measurement problem, but numerical answers give limited insight. Here, we argue that if the goal is to gain understanding, we should treat graph similarity assessment as a description problem instead. We formalize this problem as a model selection task using the Minimum Description Length principle, capturing the similarity of the input graphs in a common model and the differences between them in transformations to individual models. To discover good models, we propose Momo, which breaks the problem into two parts and introduces efficient algorithms for each. Through an extensive set of experiments on a wide range of synthetic and real-world graphs, we confirm that Momo works well in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Simplify Your Law: Using Information Theory to Deduplicate Legal Documents

Textual redundancy is one of the main challenges to ensuring that legal texts remain comprehensible and maintainable. Drawing inspiration from the refactoring literature in software engineering, which has developed methods to expose and eliminate duplicated code, we introduce the duplicated phrase detection problem for legal texts and propose the Dupex algorithm to solve it. Leveraging the Minimum Description Length principle from information theory, Dupex identifies a set of duplicated phrases, called patterns, that together best compress a given input text. Through an extensive set of experiments on the Titles of the United States Code, we confirm that our algorithm works well in practice: Dupex will help you simplify your law.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Breezing Proof of the KMW Bound

In their seminal paper from 2004, Kuhn, Moscibroda, and Wattenhofer (KMW) proved a hardness result for several fundamental graph problems in the LOCAL model: For any (randomized) algorithm, there are input graphs with $n$ nodes and maximum degree $Δ$ on which $Ω(\min\{\sqrt{\log n/\log \log n},\log Δ/\log \log Δ\})$ (expected) communication rounds are required to obtain polylogarithmic approximations to a minimum vertex cover, minimum dominating set, or maximum matching. Via reduction, this hardness extends to symmetry breaking tasks like finding maximal independent sets or maximal matchings. Today, more than $15$ years later, there is still no proof of this result that is easy on the reader. Setting out to change this, in this work, we provide a fully self-contained and $\mathit{simple}$ proof of the KMW lower bound. The key argument is algorithmic, and it relies on an invariant that can be readily verified from the generation rules of the lower bound graphs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access