Network compression with configuration models and the minimum description length
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random network models, constrained to reproduce specific statistical features, are often used to represent and analyze network data and their mathematical descriptions. Chief among them, the configuration model constrains random networks by their degree distribution and is foundational to many areas of network science. However, configuration models and their variants are often selected based on intuition or mathematical and computational simplicity rather than on statistical evidence. To evaluate the quality of a network representation, we need to consider both the amount of information required to specify a random network model and the probability of recovering the original data when using the model as a generative process. To this end, we calculate the approximate size of network ensembles generated by the popular configuration model and its generalizations, including versions accounting for degree correlations and centrality layers. We then apply the minimum description length principle as a model selection criterion over the resulting nested family of configuration models. Using a dataset of over 100 networks from various domains, we find that the classic configuration model is generally preferred on networks with an average degree above 10, while a layered configuration model constrained by a centrality metric offers the most compact representation of the majority of sparse networks.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".