Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by various data science applications including de-anonymizing user identities in social networks, we consider the graph alignment problem, where the goal is to identify the vertex/user correspondence between two correlated graphs. Existing work mostly recovers the correspondence by exploiting the user-user connections. However, in many real-world applications, additional information about the users, such as user profiles, might be publicly available. In this paper, we introduce the attributed graph alignment problem, where additional user information, referred to as attributes, is incorporated to assist graph alignment. We establish sufficient and necessary conditions for recovering vertex correspondence exactly, where the conditions match for a wide range of practical regimes. Our results recover existing tight information-theoretic limits for models where only the user-user connections are available, and further span the full spectrum between these models and models where only attribute information is available.
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 | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".