A Survey of Subgraph Optimization for Expert Team Formation
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
Expert Team Formation is the search for gathering a team of experts who are expected to collaboratively work toward accomplishing a given project, a problem that has historically been solved in a variety of ways, including manually in a time-consuming and bias-filled manner, and algorithmically within disciplines like social sciences and management. In the present effort, while providing a taxonomy to distinguish between search-based versus learning-based approaches, we survey graph-based studies from the search-based category, motivated as they comprise the mainstream. We present a unifying and vetted overview of the various definitions in this realm, scrutinize assumptions, and identify shortfalls. We start by reviewing initial approaches to the Expert Team Formation problem to lay the conceptual foundations and set forth the necessary notions for a more grounded view of this realm. Next, we provide a detailed view of graph-based Expert Team Formation approaches based on the objective functions they optimize. We lay out who builds on whom and how algorithms have evolved to solve the drawbacks of previous works. Furthermore, we categorize evaluation schemas and elaborate on metrics and insights that can be drawn from each. Referring to the evaluation schemas and metrics, we compare works and propose future directions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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