Network Comparison with Interpretable Contrastive Network Representation Learning
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
Identifying unique characteristics in a network through comparison with another network is an essential network analysis task. For example, with networks of protein interactions obtained from normal and cancer tissues, we can discover unique types of interactions in cancer tissues. This analysis task could be greatly assisted by contrastive learning, which is an emerging analysis approach to discover salient patterns in one dataset relative to another. However, existing contrastive learning methods cannot be directly applied to networks as they are designed only for high-dimensional data analysis. To address this problem, we introduce a new analysis approach called contrastive network representation learning (cNRL). By integrating two machine learning schemes, network representation learning and contrastive learning, cNRL enables embedding of network nodes into a low-dimensional representation that reveals the uniqueness of one network compared to another. Within this approach, we also design a method, named i-cNRL, which offers interpretability in the learned results, allowing for understanding which specific patterns are only found in one network. We demonstrate the effectiveness of i-cNRL for network comparison with multiple network models and real-world datasets. Furthermore, we compare i-cNRL and other potential cNRL algorithm designs through quantitative and qualitative evaluations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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