Graph Fourier MMD for Signals on Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While numerous methods have been proposed for computing distances between probability distributions in Euclidean space, relatively little attention has been given to computing such distances for distributions on graphs. However, there has been a marked increase in data that either lies on graph (such as protein interaction networks) or can be modeled as a graph (single cell data), particularly in the biomedical sciences. Thus, it becomes important to find ways to compare signals defined on such graphs. Here, we propose Graph Fourier MMD (GFMMD), a novel distance between distributions and signals on graphs. GFMMD is defined via an optimal witness function that is both smooth on the graph and maximizes the difference in expectation between the pair of distributions on the graph. We find an analytical solution to this optimization problem as well as an embedding of distributions that results from this method. We also prove several properties of this method including scale invariance and applicability to disconnected graphs. We showcase it on graph benchmark datasets as well on single cell RNA-sequencing data analysis. In the latter, we use the GFMMD-based gene embeddings to find meaningful gene clusters. We also propose a novel type of score for gene selection called gene localization score which helps select genes for cellular state space characterization.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".