Learning Heterogeneous Subgraph Representations for Team Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The team discovery task is concerned with finding a group of experts from a collaboration network who would collectively cover a desirable set of skills. Most prior work for team discovery either adopt graph-based or neural mapping approaches. Graph-based approaches are computationally intractable often leading to sub-optimal team selection. Neural mapping approaches have better performance, however, are still limited as they learn individual representations for skills and experts and are often prone to overfitting given the sparsity of collaboration networks. Thus, we define the team discovery task as one of learning subgraph representations from heterogeneous collaboration network where the sub-graphs represent teams which are then used to identify relevant teams for a given set of skills. As such, our approach captures local (node interactions with each team) and global (subgraph interactions between teams) characteristics of the representation network and allows us to easily map between any homogeneous and heterogeneous subgraphs in the network to effectively discover teams. Our experiments over two real-world datasets from different domains, namely the DBLP biblio-graphic dataset with 10, 647 papers and IMDB with 4, 882 movies, illustrate that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines on a range of ranking and quality metrics. More specifically, in terms of ranking metrics, we are superior to the best baseline by approximately 15% on the DBLP dataset and by approximately 20% on the IMDB dataset. Further, our findings illustrate that our approach consistently shows a robust performance improvement over the baselines.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".