An unsupervised framework for comparing graph embeddings
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
Abstract Graph embedding is the transformation of vertices of a graph into set of vectors. A good embedding should capture the graph topology, vertex-to-vertex relationship and other relevant information about the graph, its subgraphs and vertices. If these objectives are achieved, an embedding is a meaningful, understandable and compressed representations of a network. Finally, vector operations are simpler and faster than comparable operations on graphs. The main challenge is that one needs to make sure that embeddings well describe the properties of the graphs. In particular, a decision has to be made on the embedding dimensionality which highly impacts the quality of an embedding. As a result, selecting the best embedding is a challenging task and very often requires domain experts. In this article, we propose a ‘divergence score’ that can be assigned to embeddings to help distinguish good ones from bad ones. This general framework provides a tool for an unsupervised graph embedding comparison. In order to achieve it, we needed to generalize the well-known Chung-Lu model to incorporate geometry which is an interesting result in its own right. In order to test our framework, we did a number of experiments with synthetic networks as well as real-world networks, and various embedding algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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