MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409364181 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i16.33809

Learning Regularization for Graph Inverse Problems

2025· article· en· W4409364181 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Inverse problemGraphInverseMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceApplied mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been utilized for various applications ranging from drug discovery to network design and social networks. In many applications, it is impossible to observe some properties of the graph directly; instead, noisy and indirect measurements of these properties are available. These scenarios are coined as Graph Inverse Problems (GRIPs). In this work, we introduce a framework leveraging GNNs to solve GRIPs. The framework is based on a combination of likelihood and prior terms, which are used to find a solution that fits the data while adhering to learned prior information. Specifically, we propose to combine recent deep learning techniques that were developed for inverse problems, together with GNN architectures, to formulate and solve GRIPs. We study our approach on a number of representative problems that demonstrate the effectiveness of the framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it