Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypergraphs naturally represent group interactions, which are omnipresent in many domains: collaborations of researchers, co-purchases of items, joint interactions of proteins, to name a few. In this work, we propose tools for answering the following questions in a systematic manner: ( Q1 ) what are structural design principles of real-world hypergraphs? ( Q2 ) how can we compare local structures of hypergraphs of different sizes? ( Q3 ) how can we identify domains which hypergraphs are from? We first define hypergraph motifs (h-motifs), which describe the connectivity patterns of three connected hyperedges. Then, we define the significance of each h-motif in a hypergraph as its occurrences relative to those in properly randomized hypergraphs. Lastly, we define the characteristic profile (CP) as the vector of the normalized significance of every h-motif. Regarding Q1, we find that h-motifs' occurrences in 11 real-world hypergraphs from 5 domains are clearly distinguished from those of randomized hypergraphs. In addition, we demonstrate that CPs capture local structural patterns unique to each domain, and thus comparing CPs of hypergraphs addresses Q2 and Q3. Our algorithmic contribution is to propose MoCHy, a family of parallel algorithms for counting h-motifs' occurrences in a hypergraph. We theoretically analyze their speed and accuracy, and we show empirically that the advanced approximate version MoCHy-A + is up to 25X more accurate and 32X faster than the basic approximate and exact versions, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".