Paper:
Community Detection on Evolving Graphs
Clustering is a fundamental step in many information-retrieval and data-mining applications. Detecting clusters in graphs is also a key tool for finding the community structure in social and behavioral networks. In many of these applications, the input graph evolves over time in a continual and decentralized manner, and, to maintain a good clustering, the clustering algorithm needs to repeatedly probe the graph. Furthermore, there are often limitations on the frequency of such probes, either imposed explicitly by the online platform (e.g., in the case of crawling proprietary social networks like twitter) or implicitly because of resource limitations (e.g., in the case of crawling the web). In this paper, we study a model of clustering on evolving graphs that captures this aspect of the problem. Our model is based on the classical stochastic block model, which has been used to assess rigorously the quality of various static clustering methods. In our model, the algorithm is supposed to reconstruct the planted clustering, given the ability to query for small pieces of local information about the graph, at a limited rate. We design and analyze clustering algorithms that work in this model, and show asymptotically tight upper and lower bounds on their accuracy. Finally, we perform simulations, which demonstrate that our main asymptotic results hold true also in practice.

Review:
The paper considers community detection in an evolving graph setting where the nodes and edges of the graph are changing over time but are not observed. Instead, observations are gathered using a limited number of probes or queries of the neighbors of individual nodes. The authors consider a simple model for evolving the graph by augmenting a stochastic block model with community changes and provide theoretical results showing that their proposed probing strategy is asymptotically optimal in a special case and also performs well in simulations.
Strengths: + Among the first papers that I know of to provide theoretical results for estimation in dynamic graph models. This is an important first step that I hope will motivate further research in this area. + Considers a partial observation/active sensing setting that has not been explored much in the community detection literature. + The paper is written in a very accessible manner, and a lot of theory has been condensed and explained in a fluid and coherent way.  Weaknesses: - The theoretical results don't have immediate practical implications, although this is certainly understandable given the novelty of the work. As someone who is more of an applied researcher who occasionally dabbles in theory, it would be ideal to see more take-away points for practitioners. The main take-away point that I observed is to query a cluster proportionally to the square root of its size, but it's unclear if this is a novel finding in this paper. - The proposed model produces only 1 node changing cluster per time step on average because the reassignment probability is 1/n. This allows for only very slow dynamics. Furthermore, the proposed evolution model is very simplistic in that no other edges are changed aside from edges with the (on average) 1 node changing cluster. - Motivation by the rate limits of social media APIs is a bit weak. The motivation would suggest that it examines the error given constraints on the number of queries. The paper actually examines the number of probes/queries necessary to achieve a near-optimal error, which is a related problem but not necessarily applicable to the social media API motivation. The resource-constrained sampling motivation is more general and a better fit to the problem actually considered in this paper, in my opinion.  Suggestions: Please comment on optimality in the general case. From the discussion in the last paragraph in Section 4.3, it appears that the proposed queue algorithm would is a multiplicative factor of 1/beta from optimality. Is this indeed the case?  Why not also show experiment results for just using the algorithm of Theorem 4 in addition to the random baselines? This would allow the reader to see how much practical benefit the queue algorithm provides.  Line 308: You state that you show the average and standard deviation, but standard deviation is not visible in Figure 1. Are error bars present but just too small to be visible? If so, state that it is the case.  Line 93: "asymptoticall" -> "asymptotically" Line 109: "the some relevant features" -> Remove "the" or "some" Line 182: "queries per steps" -> "queries per step" Line 196-197: "every neighbor of neighbor of v" -> "neighbor of" repeated Line 263: Reference to Appendix in supplementary material shows ?? Line 269: In the equation for \epsilon, perhaps it would help to put parentheses around log n, i.e. (log n)/n rather than log n/n. Line 276: "issues query" -> I believe this should be "issues 1 query" Line 278: "loosing" -> "losing"  I have read the author rebuttal and other reviews and have decided not to change my scores.