Evaluating node embeddings of complex networks
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
Abstract Graph embedding is a transformation of nodes of a graph into a set of vectors. A good embedding should capture the graph topology, node-to-node relationship and other relevant information about the graph, its subgraphs and nodes. If these objectives are achieved, an embedding is a meaningful, understandable, compressed representations of a network that can be used for other machine learning tools such as node classification, community detection or link prediction. In this article, we do a series of extensive experiments with selected graph embedding algorithms, both on real-world networks as well as artificially generated ones. Based on those experiments, we formulate the following general conclusions. First, we confirm the main problem of node embeddings that is rather well-known to practitioners but less documented in the literature. There exist many algorithms available to choose from which use different techniques and have various parameters that may be tuned, the dimension being one of them. One needs to ensure that embeddings describe the properties of the underlying graphs well but, as our experiments confirm, it highly depends on properties of the network at hand and the given application in mind. As a result, selecting the best embedding is a challenging task and very often requires domain experts. Since investigating embeddings in a supervised manner is computationally expensive, there is a need for an unsupervised tool that is able to select a handful of promising embeddings for future (supervised) investigation. A general framework, introduced recently in the literature and easily available on GitHub repository, provides one of the very first tools for an unsupervised graph embedding comparison by assigning the ‘divergence score’ to embeddings with a goal of distinguishing good from bad ones. We show that the divergence score strongly correlates with the quality of embeddings by investigating three main applications of node embeddings: node classification, community detection and link prediction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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