Visualization Tasks for Unlabelled Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate tasks that can be accomplished with unlabeled graphs, which are graphs with nodes that do not have persistent or semantically meaningful labels attached. New visualization techniques to represent unlabeled graphs have been proposed, but more understanding of unlabeled graph tasks is required before these techniques can be adequately evaluated. Some network visualization tasks apply to both labeled and unlabeled graphs, but many do not translate between these contexts. We propose a data abstraction model that distinguishes the Unlabeled context from the increasingly semantically rich Labeled, Attributed, and Augmented contexts. We filter tasks collected and gleaned from the literature according to our data abstraction and analyze the surfaced tasks, leading to a taxonomy of abstract tasks for unlabeled graphs. Our task taxonomy is organized according to the Target data under consideration, the Action intended by the user, and the Scope of the data at play. We show the descriptive power of this task abstraction by connecting to concrete examples from previous frameworks, and connecting these abstractions to real-world problems. To showcase the evaluative power of the taxonomy, we perform a preliminary assessment across 6 different network visualization idioms for each task. For each combination of task and visual encoding, we consider the effort required from viewers, the likelihood of task success, and how both factors vary between small-scale and large-scale graphs. Supplemental materials are available at osf.io/e23mr.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".