Unsupervised framework for evaluating and explaining structural node embeddings of graphs
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
Abstract An embedding is a mapping from a set of nodes of a network into a real vector space. Embeddings can have various aims like capturing the underlying graph topology and structure, node-to-node relationship, or other relevant information about the graph, its subgraphs or nodes themselves. A practical challenge with using embeddings is that there are many available variants to choose from. Selecting a small set of most promising embeddings from the long list of possible options for a given task is challenging and often requires domain expertise. Embeddings can be categorized into two main types: classical embeddings and structural embeddings. Classical embeddings focus on learning both local and global proximity of nodes, while structural embeddings learn information specifically about the local structure of nodes’ neighbourhood. For classical node embeddings, there exists a framework which helps data scientists to identify (in an unsupervised way) a few embeddings that are worth further investigation. Unfortunately, no such framework exists for structural embeddings. In this article, we propose a framework for unsupervised ranking of structural graph embeddings. The proposed framework, apart from assigning an aggregate quality score for a structural embedding, additionally gives a data scientist insights into properties of this embedding. It produces information which predefined node features the embedding learns, how well it learns them, and which dimensions in the embedded space represent the predefined node features. Using this information, the user gets a level of explainability to an otherwise complex black-box embedding algorithm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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