Papers › Quantifying metadata relevance to network block structure using description length

Quantifying metadata relevance to network block structure using description length

30 Nov 2023arXiv:2311.18705links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Lena Mangold, Camille Roth

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Network analysis is often enriched by including an examination of node metadata. In the context of understanding the mesoscale of networks it is often assumed that node groups based on metadata and node groups based on connectivity patterns are intrinsically linked. This assumption is increasingly being challenged, whereby metadata might be entirely unrelated to structure or, similarly, multiple sets of metadata might be relevant to the structure of a network in different ways. We propose the metablox tool to quantify the relationship between a network's node metadata and its mesoscale structure, measuring the strength of the relationship and the type of structural arrangement exhibited by the metadata. We show on a number of synthetic and empirical networks that our tool distinguishes relevant metadata and allows for this in a comparative setting, demonstrating that it can be used as part of systematic meta analyses for the comparison of networks from different domains.

PaperPDFCode

Code

lenafm/quantifying-metadata-relevance officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections