Testing for association in multiview network data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider data consisting of multiple networks, each composed of a different edge set on a common set of nodes. Many models have been proposed for the analysis of such multiview network data under the assumption that the data views are closely related. In this paper, we provide tools for evaluating this assumption. In particular, we ask: given two networks that each follow a stochastic block model, is there an association between the latent community memberships of the nodes in the two networks? To answer this question, we extend the stochastic block model for a single network view to the two-view setting, and develop a new hypothesis test for the null hypothesis that the latent community memberships in the two data views are independent. We apply our test to protein-protein interaction data from the HINT database. We find evidence of a weak association between the latent community memberships of proteins defined with respect to binary interaction data and the latent community memberships of proteins defined with respect to cocomplex association data. We also extend this proposal to the setting of a network with node covariates. The proposed methods extend readily to three or more network/multivariate data views.
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 | 0.035 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".