A Visual Analytics Framework for Contrastive Network Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common network analysis task is comparison of two networks to identify unique characteristics in one network with respect to the other. For example, when comparing protein interaction networks derived from normal and cancer tissues, one essential task is to discover protein-protein interactions unique to cancer tissues. However, this task is challenging when the networks contain complex structural (and semantic) relations. To address this problem, we design ContraNA, a visual analytics framework leveraging both the power of machine learning for uncovering unique characteristics in networks and also the effectiveness of visualization for understanding such uniqueness. The basis of ContraNA is cNRL, which integrates two machine learning schemes, network representation learning (NRL) and contrastive learning (CL), to generate a low-dimensional embedding that reveals the uniqueness of one network when compared to another. ContraNA provides an interactive visualization interface to help analyze the uniqueness by relating embedding results and network structures as well as explaining the learned features by cNRL. We demonstrate the usefulness of ContraNA with two case studies using real-world datasets. We also evaluate through a controlled user study with 12 participants on network comparison tasks. The results show that participants were able to both effectively identify unique characteristics from complex networks and interpret the results obtained from cNRL.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".