Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similarity assessment is one of the core tasks in hyperlink analysis. Recently, with the proliferation of applications, e.g. , web search and collaborative filtering, SimRank has been a well-studied measure of similarity between two nodes in a graph. It recursively follows the philosophy that "two nodes are similar if they are referenced (have incoming edges) from similar nodes", which can be viewed as an aggregation of similarities based on incoming paths. Despite its popularity, SimRank has an undesirable property, i.e. , "zero-similarity": It only accommodates paths with equal length from a common "center" node. Thus, a large portion of other paths are fully ignored. This paper attempts to remedy this issue. (1) We propose and rigorously justify SimRank*, a revised version of SimRank, which resolves such counter-intuitive "zero-similarity" issues while inheriting merits of the basic SimRank philosophy. (2) We show that the series form of SimRank* can be reduced to a fairly succinct and elegant closed form, which looks even simpler than SimRank, yet enriches semantics without suffering from increased computational cost. This leads to a fixed-point iterative paradigm of SimRank* in O ( Knm ) time on a graph of n nodes and m edges for K iterations, which is comparable to SimRank. (3) To further optimize SimRank* computation, we leverage a novel clustering strategy via edge concentration. Due to its NP-hardness, we devise an efficient and effective heuristic to speed up SimRank* computation to O ( Kn m) time, where m is generally much smaller than m. (4) Using real and synthetic data, we empirically verify the rich semantics of SimRank*, and demonstrate its high computation efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.262 | 0.102 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".