MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963384510 · doi:10.1109/msp.2018.2887284

Learning Graphs From Data: A Signal Representation Perspective

2019· article· en· W2963384510 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Signal Processing Magazine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceInferenceViewpointsGraphVisualizationTopological graph theoryData visualizationSignal processingPerspective (graphical)Graph theoryRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningVoltage graphMathematicsDigital signal processingLine graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of a meaningful graph topology plays a crucial role in the effective representation, processing, analysis, and visualization of structured data. When a natural choice of the graph is not readily available from the data sets, it is thus desirable to infer or learn a graph topology from the data. In this article, we survey solutions to the problem of graph learning, including classical viewpoints from statistics and physics, and more recent approaches that adopt a graph signal processing (GSP) perspective. We further emphasize the conceptual similarities and differences between classical and GSP-based graph-inference methods and highlight the potential advantage of the latter in a number of theoretical and practical scenarios. We conclude with several open issues and challenges that are keys to the design of future signal processing and machine-learning algorithms for learning graphs from data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it