Modeling interactome: scale-free or geometric?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Networks have been used to model many real-world phenomena to better understand the phenomena and to guide experiments in order to predict their behavior. Since incorrect models lead to incorrect predictions, it is vital to have as accurate a model as possible. As a result, new techniques and models for analyzing and modeling real-world networks have recently been introduced. RESULTS: One example of large and complex networks involves protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. We analyze PPI networks of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster using a newly introduced measure of local network structure as well as the standardly used measures of global network structure. We examine the fit of four different network models, including Erdos-Renyi, scale-free and geometric random network models, to these PPI networks with respect to the measures of local and global network structure. We demonstrate that the currently accepted scale-free model of PPI networks fails to fit the data in several respects and show that a random geometric model provides a much more accurate model of the PPI data. We hypothesize that only the noise in these networks is scale-free. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically evaluate how well-different network models fit the PPI networks. We show that the structure of PPI networks is better modeled by a geometric random graph than by a scale-free model. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information is available at http://www.cs.utoronto.ca/~juris/data/data/ppiGRG04/
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".