I’m Me, We’re Us, and I’m Us: Tri-directional Contrastive Learning on Hypergraphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although machine learning on hypergraphs has attracted considerable attention, most of the works have focused on (semi-)supervised learning, which may cause heavy labeling costs and poor generalization. Recently, contrastive learning has emerged as a successful unsupervised representation learning method. Despite the prosperous development of contrastive learning in other domains, contrastive learning on hypergraphs remains little explored. In this paper, we propose TriCL (Tri-directional Contrastive Learning), a general framework for contrastive learning on hypergraphs. Its main idea is tri-directional contrast, and specifically, it aims to maximize in two augmented views the agreement (a) between the same node, (b) between the same group of nodes, and (c) between each group and its members. Together with simple but surprisingly effective data augmentation and negative sampling schemes, these three forms of contrast enable TriCL to capture both node- and group-level structural information in node embeddings. Our extensive experiments using 14 baseline approaches, 10 datasets, and two tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of TriCL, and most noticeably, TriCL almost consistently outperforms not just unsupervised competitors but also (semi-)supervised competitors mostly by significant margins for node classification. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/wooner49/TriCL.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".