Mining Cohesive Patterns from Graphs with Feature Vectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing availability of network data is creating a great potential for knowledge discovery from graph data. In many applications, feature vectors are given in addition to graph data, where nodes represent entities, edges relationships between entities, and feature vectors associated with the nodes represent properties of entities. Often features and edges contain complementary information. In such scenarios the simultaneous use of both data types promises more meaningful and accurate results. Along these lines, we introduce the novel problem of mining cohesive patterns from graphs with feature vectors, which combines the concepts of dense subgraphs and subspace clusters into a very expressive problem definition. A cohesive pattern is a dense and connected subgraph that has homogeneous values in a large enough feature subspace. We argue that this problem definition is natural in identifying small communities in social networks and functional modules in Protein-Protein interaction networks. We present the algorithm CoPaM (Cohesive Pattern Miner), which exploits various pruning strategies to efficiently find all maximal cohesive patterns. Our theoretical analysis proves the correctness of CoPaM, and our experimental evaluation demonstrates its effectiveness and efficiency.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".