MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151791879 · doi:10.14778/3447689.3447713

FREDE

2021· article· en· W3151791879 on OpenAlexaff
Anton Tsitsulin, Marina Munkhoeva, Davide Mottin, Panagiotis Karras, Ivan Oseledets, Emmanuel Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the VLDB Endowment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low-dimensional representations, or embeddings , of a graph's nodes facilitate several practical data science and data engineering tasks. As such embeddings rely, explicitly or implicitly, on a similarity measure among nodes, they require the computation of a quadratic similarity matrix, inducing a tradeoff between space complexity and embedding quality. To date, no graph embedding work combines (i) linear space complexity, (ii) a nonlinear transform as its basis, and (iii) nontrivial quality guarantees. In this paper we introduce FREDE ( FREquent Directions Embedding ), a graph embedding based on matrix sketching that combines those three desiderata. Starting out from the observation that embedding methods aim to preserve the covariance among the rows of a similarity matrix, FREDE iteratively improves on quality while individually processing rows of a nonlinearly transformed PPR similarity matrix derived from a state-of-the-art graph embedding method and provides, at any iteration , column-covariance approximation guarantees in due course almost indistinguishable from those of the optimal approximation by SVD. Our experimental evaluation on variably sized networks shows that FREDE performs almost as well as SVD and competitively against state-of-the-art embedding methods in diverse data science tasks, even when it is based on as little as 10% of node similarities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the VLDB EndowmentSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207