Bayesian Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Semi-Supervised Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, techniques for applying convolutional neural networks to graph-structured data have emerged. Graph convolutional neural networks (GCNNs) have been used to address node and graph classification and matrix completion. Although the performance has been impressive, the current implementations have limited capability to incorporate uncertainty in the graph structure. Almost all GCNNs process a graph as though it is a ground-truth depiction of the relationship between nodes, but often the graphs employed in applications are themselves derived from noisy data or modelling assumptions. Spurious edges may be included; other edges may be missing between nodes that have very strong relationships. In this paper we adopt a Bayesian approach, viewing the observed graph as a realization from a parametric family of random graphs. We then target inference of the joint posterior of the random graph parameters and the node (or graph) labels. We present the Bayesian GCNN framework and develop an iterative learning procedure for the case of assortative mixed-membership stochastic block models. We present the results of experiments that demonstrate that the Bayesian formulation can provide better performance when there are very few labels available during the training process.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".