A multi-purposed unsupervised framework for comparing embeddings of undirected and directed graphs
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 network into a set of vectors. A good embedding should capture the underlying graph topology and structure, node-to-node relationship, and other relevant information about the graph, its subgraphs, and nodes themselves. If these objectives are achieved, an embedding is a meaningful, understandable, and often compressed representation of a network. Unfortunately, selecting the best embedding is a challenging task and very often requires domain experts. In this paper, we extend the framework for evaluating graph embeddings that was recently introduced in [15]. Now, the framework assigns two scores, local and global, to each embedding that measure the quality of an evaluated embedding for tasks that require good representation of local and, respectively, global properties of the network. The best embedding, if needed, can be selected in an unsupervised way, or the framework can identify a few embeddings that are worth further investigation. The framework is flexible and scalable and can deal with undirected/directed and weighted/unweighted graphs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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