Link analysis ranking: algorithms, theory, and experiments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The explosive growth and the widespread accessibility of the Web has led to a surge of research activity in the area of information retrieval on the World Wide Web. The seminal papers of Kleinberg [1998, 1999] and Brin and Page [1998] introduced Link Analysis Ranking , where hyperlink structures are used to determine the relative authority of a Web page and produce improved algorithms for the ranking of Web search results. In this article we work within the hubs and authorities framework defined by Kleinberg and we propose new families of algorithms. Two of the algorithms we propose use a Bayesian approach, as opposed to the usual algebraic and graph theoretic approaches. We also introduce a theoretical framework for the study of Link Analysis Ranking algorithms. The framework allows for the definition of specific properties of Link Analysis Ranking algorithms, as well as for comparing different algorithms. We study the properties of the algorithms that we define, and we provide an axiomatic characterization of the INDEGREE heuristic which ranks each node according to the number of incoming links. We conclude the article with an extensive experimental evaluation. We study the quality of the algorithms, and we examine how different structures in the graphs affect their performance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 it