Matching Article Pairs with Graphical Decomposition and Convolutions
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
Identifying the relationship between two articles, e.g., whether two articles published from different sources describe the same breaking news, is critical to many document understanding tasks. Existing approaches for modeling and matching sentence pairs do not perform well in matching longer documents, which embody more complex interactions between the enclosed entities than a sentence does. To model article pairs, we propose the Concept Interaction Graph to represent an article as a graph of concepts. We then match a pair of articles by comparing the sentences that enclose the same concept vertex through a series of encoding techniques, and aggregate the matching signals through a graph convolutional network. To facilitate the evaluation of long article matching, we have created two datasets, each consisting of about 30K pairs of breaking news articles covering diverse topics in the open domain. Extensive evaluations of the proposed methods on the two datasets demonstrate significant improvements over a wide range of state-of-the-art methods for natural language matching.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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