Hurdle Blockmodels for Sparse Network Modeling
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
A variety of random graph models have been proposed in the literature to model the associations within an interconnected system and to realistically account for various structures and attributes of such systems. In particular, much research has been devoted to modeling the interaction of humans within social networks. However, such networks in real-life tend to be extremely sparse and existing methods do not adequately address this issue. In this article, we propose an extension to ordinary and degree corrected stochastic blockmodels that accounts for a high degree of sparsity. Specifically, we propose hurdle versions of these blockmodels to account for community structure and degree heterogeneity in sparse networks. We use simulation to ensure parameter estimation is consistent and precise, and we propose the use of likelihood ratio-type tests for model selection. We illustrate the necessity for hurdle blockmodels with a small research collaboration network as well as the infamous Enron E-mail exchange network. Methods for determining goodness of fit and performing model selection are also proposed. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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