Architecture and evolution of semantic networks in mathematics texts

Ann Sizemore Blevins; Danielle S. Bassett; Nicolas H. Christianson

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 86 references

Architecture and evolution of semantic networks in mathematics texts

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the evolving semantic networks of linear algebra textbooks contain topological knowledge gaps, and that longer-lived gaps correlate negatively with reader ratings, especially when the filtration is examined one step…

desk verdict Solid descriptive network-science findings on textbook structure, but the headline Goodreads-rating correlation is likely an artifact of the OAAT filtration and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04911 v2 pith:VUNM2PCJ submitted 2019-08-14 cs.CL physics.soc-phq-bio.NC

Nicolas H. Christianson , Ann Sizemore Blevins , Danielle S. Bassett This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLphysics.soc-phq-bio.NC

keywords semanticnetworkspersistenthomologylinearalgebratextbooksknowledgegapscore-peripherystructuretopologicaldataanalysistextbookexpositionco-occurrence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the way mathematical knowledge is arranged in textbooks can be measured as a growing network, and that the topology of that network tracks how well readers receive the book. Working from ten linear algebra textbooks, the authors build a network whose nodes are concepts and whose edges are sentences that mention two concepts together, then let the network grow in the order the text presents it. They claim that this growth has a consistent architecture: a dense core of foundational concepts appears early, while a sparse, modular periphery is introduced more evenly. Using persistent homology, they identify 'knowledge gaps' as topological cavities that are born, persist, and later fill as the text proceeds, and they report that longer-lived gaps, measured as normalized average cycle lifetime, correlate negatively with community ratings of the book, particularly at the sub-sentence scale. If correct, the result makes textbook exposition quantitatively comparable and opens the door to designing orderings that minimize persistent gaps.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is persistent homology applied to the clique complex of a growing co-occurrence network. As the text proceeds, each new sentence adds concepts (nodes) and co-occurrences (edges) to the filtration; filling in every all-to-all connected subgraph as a simplex turns the graph into a clique complex whose holes, cavities, and disconnected components can be tracked with barcodes. A hole is born when it first appears and dies when later connections fill it, and the normalized average cycle lifetime $D_k = \frac{1}{mN}\sum_{i=1}^{m} (d_i - b_i)$ summarizes how long such gaps persist per dimension. The one-at-a-time (OAAT) variant adds one node or edge at a time so that texts with different sentence structures and null models can be compared on equal footing. This machinery is what turns prose order into a quantitative 'gap density' that can be correlated with reader ratings.

What would settle it

Take a set of linear algebra textbooks with known student exam performance or concept-map test scores, run the same concept-extraction and OAAT persistent-homology pipeline, and check whether normalized average cycle lifetimes still correlate negatively with those learning measures. If the correlation vanishes, reverses, or is explained by a confound such as text length, the interpretive bridge between holes and knowledge gaps fails even if the original rating correlation was real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a negative association between the persistence of topological cavities in the evolving semantic network and the community rating of the textbook. In the paper's one-at-a-time filtration, which adds one node or edge per step to remove sentence-level granularity, the normalized average cycle lifetime correlates negatively with average rating in dimension 0 (Spearman rho = -0.857, p = 0.0137), dimension 2 (rho = -0.893, p = 0.00681), and the mean over dimensions 0, 1, and 2 (rho = -0.821, p = 0.0234). The authors interpret these cavities as knowledge gaps: places where concepts are not yet connected to the growing network. The texts also systematically fall below null models in the number and persistence of 0-dimensional gaps, suggesting that ordinary exposition deliberately connects new concepts quickly, while higher-dimensional cavities vary more across books. The paper is careful to present the rating correlation as preliminary, since only seven of the ten textbooks had enough community ratings.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a topological cavity in the co-occurrence clique complex is the same thing as a 'knowledge gap' that affects a reader's understanding or enjoyment, and that community star ratings measure that effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported correlations hold in larger samples, the persistence of topological gaps in a growing concept network becomes a measurable signal of perceived exposition quality.
Textbook authors and curriculum designers could compare alternative orderings of the same material by computing the normalized average cycle lifetime of each ordering and preferring one with fewer persistent gaps.
The finding that real texts sit between a fully connected node-ordered model and a random edge order suggests that effective exposition intentionally leaves some gaps, rather than minimizing them entirely.
The same pipeline can be applied to other well-structured expository domains, such as physics or biology textbooks, to test whether the gap-rating relationship is specific to linear algebra.
The absence of a significant correlation at sentence-level granularity, together with significance at OAAT granularity, implies that the relevant gaps are sub-sentence ordering effects, not coarse chapter-level structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct test the paper does not run: replace community ratings with measured learning outcomes from students reading the same texts; if the negative correlation survives, the gap metric is about learnability, not taste. The paper itself calls for classroom studies.
The relationship may be causal in the direction the authors suggest, but it could equally reflect a confound: higher-rated books may be better written in many ways that also reduce topological persistence, so the gap metric may be a proxy rather than a mechanism.
One could compute the same metrics on randomized section order within a single textbook and ask how much gap persistence changes; this would quantify how much of the signal is due to chapter ordering versus sentence-level exposition.
If the metric generalizes, it suggests a practical optimization criterion, but optimizing solely to minimize persistent gaps could suppress motivating connections, a tradeoff the authors note in their discussion of productive failure and curiosity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The descriptive core of this paper is genuine and well executed. The authors build growing semantic networks from ten linear algebra textbooks, show that core concepts are introduced early while peripheral concepts come in modular bursts, and use persistent homology with several null models to argue that real expositions create and fill topological gaps more sparingly than random edge order. Those findings are new for whole-book expositions, the null-model comparisons are thoughtful, and the paper is candid about its pipeline being heuristic and its conclusions being exploratory.

The problem is the headline claim: that the density of knowledge gaps tracks negatively with community ratings. That correlation only appears after the one-at-a-time (OAAT) transformation, which unfurls each sentence by adding all new nodes first, then all new edges, in random order. The actual sentence-level filtration, which preserves the order readers encounter, shows no significant correlation in any dimension (Table S5). The OAAT ordering is a modeling choice made so that text filtrations can be compared with node-ordered null models; it is not part of the exposition. The supplement also reports that OAAT NACL correlates with sentence count and node count, so the metric partly measures text length or term burstiness, not necessarily knowledge gaps. On top of that, the rating analysis uses seven books, no multiple-comparison correction, and Goodreads ratings as a proxy for learning quality.

So the interpretive bridge is weak: topological cavities in a co-occurrence clique complex are asserted to be knowledge gaps, and the only evidence tying them to perceived text quality rests on an arbitrary unfurling. I would not call the rating result an artifact with certainty, but the paper has not established that OAAT faithfully reflects expositional structure, and the internal evidence (sentence-level null result, length correlations) points that way.

What holds up: the core-periphery and community findings, the early-core/late-periphery development, and the comparison of persistent homology against random-index, random-sentence, random-edge, and node-ordered nulls. Those are reproducible in principle (code is on GitHub, though no commit hash and no cleaned text data). This is a useful exploratory study for network scientists working on text structure, and possibly for mathematics-education researchers, as long as the rating claim is treated as unvalidated.

A serious referee should engage with this paper, but the rating-correlation section needs major revision: either test it against the sentence-level filtration, control for text length, or frame it as a hypothesis-generation finding with explicit caveats. I would not cite the rating result in my own work; I might cite the descriptive structural findings.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs growing semantic networks from ten linear algebra textbooks, with nodes identified by a modified RAKE keyword-extraction algorithm and edges defined by sentence-level co-occurrence. It reports three families of findings: (i) the networks display core-periphery structure with an early-introduced core and a modular periphery; (ii) the expositional filtrations show persistent homology in dimensions 0, 1, and 2, with fewer and shorter-lived cavities than a random edge-order null model and more than a node-ordered null model, interpreted as 'knowledge gaps' that are created and filled; and (iii) the density of these gaps, measured by the one-at-a-time (OAAT) normalized average cycle lifetime, correlates negatively with average Goodreads ratings of seven of the texts (Spearman rho = -0.857, -0.893, and -0.821 for dimensions 0, 2, and the average across dimensions). The paper is explicitly exploratory and provides code, multiple null models, and supplementary correlation analyses.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would introduce a novel, fully computational way to score textbook exposition by the persistence of topological cavities in a growing semantic network, with implications for learning-enhancement design. The descriptive structural findings — early introduction of core concepts, peripheral modularity, sparse persistent homology relative to random edge order — are supported by several null ensembles and are a useful contribution to the quantitative study of educational texts. The paper also openly ships its extraction and analysis pipeline, which aids reproducibility. However, the most prominent claim, the negative correlation between knowledge-gap density and community ratings, rests on a small sample (n=7), a nonstandard OAAT filtration that is not part of the actual exposition, and an interpretive bridge from topological holes to cognitive 'knowledge gaps' that is asserted rather than validated. The result is therefore best viewed as an intriguing hypothesis in need of further testing rather than an established fact.

major comments (2)

[Results, 'Evolving structure and text properties'; Supplementary Methods; Table S5] The statistical basis for the rating correlation is thin: only seven textbooks have Goodreads ratings, the number of ratings per text ranges from 6 to 891 (Table S6), and the average rating across editions is used as a proxy for the specific edition analyzed. The Spearman tests in Table S5 are not corrected for multiple comparisons despite at least eight hypothesis tests being performed; under a Bonferroni correction for eight tests, only the dimension-2 OAAT p-value (0.00681) would remain below a 0.05 threshold, and the dimension-0 and average p-values would not. The paper acknowledges the small sample in the Results, but the abstract and Discussion present the correlation as a central finding ('density of these gaps tracks negatively with community ratings') without the same caveat. I recommend adding an explicit statement of the number of comparisons, a corrected p-value or false-discovery-rate analysis, and a more prominent caveat that these are exploratory correlations.
[Methods, 'Persistent homology'; Discussion, 'Methodological considerations'] The interpretive claim that topological cavities in the clique complex of a sentence co-occurrence network are 'exactly the knowledge gaps we seek' (Methods) is an assertion, not a validated equivalence. The Discussion subsequently concedes that the study 'did not deal explicitly with differential learnability of texts or in how knowledge gaps might affect the learning process.' Since the entire rating analysis depends on this bridge, the paper should distinguish the descriptive topological findings from the cognitive interpretation, either by validating the bridge (e.g., with human judgments of conceptual gaps or learning outcomes) or by clearly labeling the knowledge-gap interpretation as a hypothesis in the abstract and results, not a demonstrated fact.

minor comments (4)

[Results, 'Expositional development of knowledge gaps'] The main text refers to the 'one-at-a-time (OAAT) filtration' without defining it; the definition appears only in the Supplementary Methods. A one-sentence description should be given in the main text, along with a statement that this filtration is an analytic convenience for comparing across models with different time granularities, not a model of reading order.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption states 'introduction, persistence, and death of cycles introduced throughout exposition'; in the language of persistent homology, bars are born and die rather than being introduced, and the word 'introduced' is used inconsistently elsewhere for nodes and edges. Please use consistent terminology (birth/death) throughout.
[Methods, 'Persistent homology'] The definition of D_k includes the convention that infinite-lifetime intervals are set to d_i = N+1; this convention is important for interpreting the metric and should be stated in the main text rather than left implicit.
[Supplementary Results, 'Extended correlation analysis'] The supplement reports that the number of Goodreads ratings does not correlate with the average rating (rho=0.464, p=0.294), but the analysis does not report the date of data collection or the exact edition-matching procedure. Adding these details would help readers assess the stability and reproducibility of the rating variable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the rating correlations use external Goodreads data and are not fitted to the topology; the self-citations that occur are motivational rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain begins with concepts extracted from textbook text, moves through sentence-co-occurrence networks and their growth filtrations, computes persistent homology and normalized average cycle lifetimes, and then correlates those lifetimes with external Goodreads ratings. None of these steps fits a parameter to the rating target or defines a quantity in terms of that target: the Goodreads ratings are independent of the network construction, and both the sentence-level and OAAT correlations are computed and displayed in Table S5 and Figure 5. The fact that sentence-based correlations are null while OAAT correlations are significant is a potential robustness concern about the arbitrary random within-sentence ordering in the OAAT filtration, but it is not a circularity because the OAAT metric is constructed before the rating comparison rather than from it. The Methods statement that 'These cavities or holes are exactly the knowledge gaps we seek' is an explicit operational definition, not an equation that equates the predicted variable with an input. Self-citations do appear: the knowledge-gap framing cites the authors' prior work (Ref. 26) and the node-ordered null is attributed to Refs. 26 and 50. These citations motivate the choice of constructs and null models, but they do not supply the headline correlation, which is computed from newly extracted textbook data and independent ratings. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to its central empirical claim; the only circularity-related caveat is minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on several hand-chosen extraction parameters (RAKE threshold and filters) and on interpretive assumptions (co-occurrence equals relatedness; topological holes equal knowledge gaps; Goodreads ratings equal quality). No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the 'knowledge gap' is a metaphor. The null models are standard and do not fit the target correlation, so circularity burden is low.

free parameters (6)

RAKE concept retention threshold = top half of scored keyphrases
The authors keep the top-scoring half of RAKE candidates as the concept set. This determines node counts (146 to 453 per text) and shapes all network metrics. The choice is justified by similarity to prior thresholds, not by a formal criterion.
RAKE keyword filters = min length 3, min frequency 5, max phrase length 4
Hand-set constraints in concept extraction that exclude short, rare, or long phrases; these affect which concepts become nodes.
Core-periphery resolution gamma_C = 1
Resolution parameter in the core-ness quality function (Methods, 'Meso-scale network structure'). Standard default, but it controls the core/periphery split that underlies the development-curve analysis.
Modularity resolution gamma_M = 1
Resolution parameter in the Louvain modularity function; standard default, but it controls the periphery community partition.
Null-model weight distribution = per-text best fit (Burr, Log-normal, or Fisk)
The continuous configuration null model fits a positive distribution to normalized edge weights (Table S2). This null informs the significance of core-periphery and modularity values.
OAAT within-sentence ordering = random order, 100 instantiations
The one-at-a-time filtration randomizes the order of nodes and edges introduced in the same sentence. Headline rating correlations use OAAT NACL values, so this stochastic choice matters; the paper averages over 100 instantiations.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Co-occurrence of two concepts within the same sentence indicates a semantic relationship between them.
Edges are defined by sentence-level co-occurrence in Methods ('Network construction'). The paper does not validate this as a model of mathematical relatedness; it is a pragmatic choice that treats any same-sentence appearance as a relation.
domain assumption The modified RAKE keyphrase scores and the top-half threshold select the significant mathematical concepts of each text.
Concept extraction is acknowledged as ill-posed (Methodological considerations). The threshold of one-half is chosen by the authors, not derived from an external benchmark.
domain assumption Topological cavities in the clique complex of the growing co-occurrence network correspond to knowledge gaps that influence learning and text quality.
Stated in Methods ('Persistent homology'): 'These cavities or holes are exactly the knowledge gaps we seek'. This interpretive bridge is necessary for the rating correlation to be meaningful.
domain assumption Goodreads average ratings approximate the quality or learnability of the textbooks.
Ratings are reader opinions, not learning outcomes; only 7 of 10 texts have at least 5 ratings (Table S6). The paper calls these results preliminary.
standard math Persistent homology of a clique complex correctly captures the topology of a growing graph.
Standard topological data analysis; implemented via Ripser.py. Accepted background for this type of study.
standard math Null models preserve relevant features (degree, strength, sentence order, or index distribution) while randomizing the target feature.
Standard null-model logic in network science; the five null models are described in Methods and the Supplement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Architecture and evolution of semantic networks in mathematics texts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUNM2PCJ

@misc{pith2026190804911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Architecture and evolution of semantic networks in mathematics texts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUNM2PCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04911}
}

read the original abstract

Knowledge is a network of interconnected concepts. Yet, precisely how the topological structure of knowledge constrains its acquisition remains unknown, hampering the development of learning enhancement strategies. Here we study the topological structure of semantic networks reflecting mathematical concepts and their relations in college-level linear algebra texts. We hypothesize that these networks will exhibit structural order, reflecting the logical sequence of topics that ensures accessibility. We find that the networks exhibit strong core-periphery architecture, where a dense core of concepts presented early is complemented with a sparse periphery presented evenly throughout the exposition; the latter is composed of many small modules each reflecting more narrow domains. Using tools from applied topology, we find that the expositional evolution of the semantic networks produces and subsequently fills knowledge gaps, and that the density of these gaps tracks negatively with community ratings of each textbook. Broadly, our study lays the groundwork for future efforts developing optimal design principles for textbook exposition and teaching in a classroom setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04911 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Meso-scale structure of semantic networks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Development of core-periphery structure during exposition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Development and persistence of knowledge gaps throughout exposition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Relation between textbook ratings and network topology. Scatterplots and best-fit lines for average [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

Sowa, J. F. Semantic Networks (John Wiley & Sons, 2006). URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/0470018860.s00065

doi:10.1002/0470018860.s00065 2006
[2]

Epistemology

Steup, M. Epistemology. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018), winter 2018 edn

2018
[3]

Hartley, R. T. & Barnden, J. A. Semantic networks: visualizations of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1, 169 – 175 (1997)

1997
[4]

Semantic networks

Lehmann, F. Semantic networks. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 23, 1 – 50 (1992)

1992
[5]

& Gabrilovich, E

Nickel, M., Murphy, K., Tresp, V. & Gabrilovich, E. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 11–33 (2016)

2016
[6]

& Tenenbaum, J

Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B. The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cogn Sci 29, 41–78 (2005)

2005
[7]

Gallenstein, N

L. Gallenstein, N. Mathematics concept maps: assessing connections. Teaching Children Mathematics 17, 436–440 (2011)

2011
[8]

& McClelland, G

Broggy, J. & McClelland, G. Integrating concept mapping into higher education: A case study with physics education students in an irish university. British Education Research Association Annual Con- ference Manchester, Sept (2009)

work page 2009

Show all 86 references

[9]

Hill, L. H. Concept mapping to encourage meaningful student learning. Adult Learning 16, 7–13 (2005)

2005
[10]

Daley, B. J. Facilitating learning with adult students through concept mapping. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 50, 21–31 (2002)

2002
[11]

A., Nyman, M

Lapp, D. A., Nyman, M. A. & Berry, J. S. Student connections of linear algebra concepts: an analysis of concept maps. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 41, 1–18 (2010)

2010
[12]

Newman, M. E. J. Networks: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010)

2010
[13]

A complex network approach to distributional semantic models

Utsumi, A. A complex network approach to distributional semantic models. PLOS ONE 10, 1–34 (2015)

2015
[14]

W., Papadopoulos, L., Kahn, A

Lynn, C. W., Papadopoulos, L., Kahn, A. E. & Bassett, D. S. Human information processing in complex networks. arXiv 1906, 00926 (2019)

2019
[15]

Learning about knowledge: A complex network approach

da Fontoura Costa, L. Learning about knowledge: A complex network approach. Phys. Rev. E 74, 026103 (2006)

2006
[16]

& Bassett, D

Karuza, E., Thompson-Schill, S. & Bassett, D. Local patterns to global architectures: Inﬂuences of network topology on human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20, 629–640 (2016)

2016
[17]

Koponen, I. T. & Nousiainen, M. Concept networks of students’ knowledge of relationships between physics concepts: ﬁnding key concepts and their epistemic support. Applied Network Science 3, 14 (2018)

2018
[18]

& Park, Y

Yun, E. & Park, Y. Extraction of scientiﬁc semantic networks from science textbooks and comparison with science teachers’ spoken language by text network analysis. International Journal of Science Education 40, 2118–2136 (2018)

2018
[19]

& Gong, W

Fang, Z., Wang, J., Liu, B. & Gong, W. Wikipedia as domain knowledge networks - domain extraction and statistical measurement. In KDIR (2011). 18

2011
[20]

Chai, L. R. & Bassett, D. S. Evolution of semantic networks in biomedical texts. arXiv 1810, 10534 (2018)

2018
[21]

& Moret, M

Pereira, H., Fadigas, I., Senna, V. & Moret, M. Semantic networks based on titles of scientiﬁc papers. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 390, 1192 – 1197 (2011)

2011
[22]

& O’Shea, T

Ritter, F., Nerb, J., Lehtinen, E. & O’Shea, T. (eds.) In Order to Learn: How the sequence of topics inﬂuences learning (Oxford University Press, 2007)

2007
[23]

Productive failure in learning math

Kapur, M. Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science 38, 1008–1022 (2014)

2014
[24]

Making connections: Mathematical understanding and network theory

Mowat, E. Making connections: Mathematical understanding and network theory. For the Learning of Mathematics 28, 20–27 (2008). URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/40248625

2008
[25]

& Davis, B

Mowat, E. & Davis, B. Interpreting embodied mathematics using network theory: Implications for mathematics education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 7 (2010). URL https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8834

2010 doi
[26]

E., Karuza, E., Giusti, C

Sizemore, A. E., Karuza, E., Giusti, C. & Bassett, D. Knowledge gaps in the early growth of semantic feature networks. Nature Human Behavior 2, 682–692 (2019)

2019
[27]

Topology and data

Carlsson, G. Topology and data. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 46, 255–308 (2009)

2009
[28]

& Carlsson, G

Zomorodian, A. & Carlsson, G. Computing persistent homology. Discrete Comput. Geom. 33, 249–274 (2005). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00454-004-1146-y

2005 doi
[29]

& Morozov, D

Edelsbrunner, H. & Morozov, D. Persistent homology: Theory and practice. In Proceedings of the European congress of mathematics, 31–50 (2013)

2013
[30]

A., Tillmann, U., Grindrod, P

Otter, N., Porter, M. A., Tillmann, U., Grindrod, P. & Harrington, H. A. A roadmap for the computation of persistent homology. EPJ Data Science 6, 17 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/ s13688-017-0109-5

2017 doi
[31]

& Cowley, W

Rose, S., Engel, D., Cramer, N. & Cowley, W. Automatic Keyword Extraction from Individual Docu- ments, 1 – 20 (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010)

2010
[32]

Peixoto, T. P. The graph-tool python library. ﬁgshare (2014). URL http://figshare.com/articles/ graph_tool/1164194

2014
[33]

Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P. et al. SciPy: Open source scientiﬁc tools for Python (2001–). URL http://www.scipy.org/

2001
[34]

& Carlsson, G

Adcock, A., Carlsson, E. & Carlsson, G. The ring of algebraic functions on persistence bar codes. Homology, Homotopy and Applications 18, 381–402 (2016)

2016
[35]

Hierarchies in mathematics education

Hart, K. Hierarchies in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics 12, 205–218 (1981). URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3482365

1981
[36]

Gijselaers, W. H. Connecting problem-based practices with educational theory. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1996, 13–21 (1996). URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/tl.37219966805

1996
[37]

let us deﬁne a function

Avital, S. M. Teaching a mathematical proof by exposition or the “let us deﬁne a function” syndrome. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology 4, 143–147 (1973). URL https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739730040209

1973 doi
[38]

Fried, M. N. & Jahnke, H. N. Otto Toeplitz’s 1927 paper on the genetic method in the teaching of mathematics. Science in Context 28, 285–295 (2015)

2015
[39]

& Uzzi, B

Csermely, P., London, A., Wu, L.-Y. & Uzzi, B. Structure and dynamics of core/periphery networks. Journal of Complex Networks 1, 93–123 (2013). URL https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnt016. 19

2013 doi
[40]

Verma, T., Russmann, F., Araujo, N. A. M., Nagler, J. & Herrmann, H. J. Emergence of core-peripheries in networks. Nature Communications 7 (2016)

2016
[41]

Bassett, D. S. et al. Robust detection of dynamic community structure in networks. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 23, 013142 (2013). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/ 1.4790830

2013
[42]

& Lakkaraju, K

Alvari, H., Hajibagheri, A., Sukthankar, G. & Lakkaraju, K. Identifying community structures in dynamic networks (2016)

2016
[43]

& Leitte, H

Rieck, B. & Leitte, H. ’Shall I compare thee to a network?’: Visualizing the Topological Structure of Shakespeare’s plays. In Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities at IEEE VIS (2016)

2016
[44]

Persistent homology: An introduction and a new text representation for natural language processing

Zhu, X. Persistent homology: An introduction and a new text representation for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the twenty-third international joint conference on artiﬁcial intelligence, IJCAI ’13, 1953–1959 (AAAI Press, 2013)

1953
[45]

& Lee, M

Savle, K., Zadrozny, W. & Lee, M. Topological data analysis for discourse semantics? In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics - Student Papers, 34–43 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2019). URL https://www.ac...

2019
[46]

& Jones, N

Salnikov, V., Cassese, D., Lambiotte, R. & Jones, N. S. Co-occurrence simplicial complexes in mathe- matics: identifying the holes of knowledge. Appl Netw Sci 3, 37 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/s41109-018-0074-3

2018
[47]

The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation

Loewenstein, G. The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin 116, 75–98 (1994)

1994
[48]

Seger, C. A. Implicit learning. Psychol Bull 115, 163–196 (1994)

1994
[49]

T., Maouene, M., Maouene, J., Sheya, A

Hills, T. T., Maouene, M., Maouene, J., Sheya, A. & Smith, L. Longitudinal analysis of early semantic networks preferential attachment or preferential acquisition? Psychol Sci 20, 729–739 (2009)

2009
[50]

Blevins, A. S. & Bassett, D. S. On the reorderability of node-ﬁltered order complexes. arXiv 1905, 02330 (2019)

2019
[51]

& Kidd, C

Wade, S. & Kidd, C. The role of prior knowledge and curiosity in learning. Psychon Bull Rev (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01598-6

2019 doi
[52]

& Montani, I

Honnibal, M. & Montani, I. spaCy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convo- lutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear (2017)

2017
[53]

& Loper, E

Bird, S., Klein, E. & Loper, E. Natural Language Processing with Python (O’Reilly Media, 2009)

2009
[54]

Enchant (2017)

Lachowicz, D. Enchant (2017). URL https://www.abisource.com/projects/enchant/

2017
[55]

Manning, C. D. & Sch¨ utze, H. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing , chap. Colloca- tions (The MIT Press, 1999)

1999
[56]

& Buckley, C

Salton, G. & Buckley, C. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval.Information Processing & Management 24, 513 – 523 (1988). URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0306457388900210

1988
[57]

Kuˇ cera, H.Computational analysis of present-day American English (Brown University Press, Provi- dence, R.I., 1967)

1967
[58]

Newman, M. E. J. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 8577–8582 (2006). URL http://www.pnas.org/content/103/23/8577. 20

2006
[59]

Borgatti, S. P. & Everett, M. G. Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks 21, 375–395 (2000)

2000
[60]

& Sporns, O

Rubinov, M. & Sporns, O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: Uses and interpretations. NeuroImage 52, 1059 – 1069 (2010). URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S105381190901074X

2010
[61]

Rubinov, M., Ypma, R. J. F., Watson, C. & Bullmore, E. T. Wiring cost and topological participation of the mouse brain connectome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 10032–10037 (2015). URL http://www.pnas.org/content/112/32/10032

2015
[62]

D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R

Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008, P10008 (2008). URL http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2008/i=10/a=P10008

2008
[63]

& Rajkovi´ c, M

Horak, D., Maleti´ c, S. & Rajkovi´ c, M. Persistent homology of complex networks.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2009, P03034 (2009). URL http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/ 2009/i=03/a=P03034

2009
[64]

& Vaccarino, F

Petri, G., Scolamiero, M., Donato, I. & Vaccarino, F. Topological strata of weighted complex networks. PLOS ONE 8, 1–8 (2013). URL https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066506

2013 doi
[65]

J., Harrington, H

Stolz, B. J., Harrington, H. A. & Porter, M. A. Persistent homology of time-dependent functional networks constructed from coupled time series. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 27, 047410 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4978997

2017 doi
[66]

& Gentimis, T

Bampasidou, M. & Gentimis, T. Modeling collaborations with persistent homology. arXiv 1403, 5346 (2014)

2014
[67]

& Bar-On, R

Tralie, C., Saul, N. & Bar-On, R. Ripser.py: A lean persistent homology library for python. The Journal of Open Source Software 3, 925 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00925

2018 doi
[68]

Linear Algebra Done Right (Springer International Publishing, 2015), 3 edn

Axler, S. Linear Algebra Done Right (Springer International Publishing, 2015), 3 edn

2015
[69]

Linear Algebra with Applications (Pearson Education, Inc., 2013), 5 edn

Bretscher, O. Linear Algebra with Applications (Pearson Education, Inc., 2013), 5 edn

2013
[70]

Edwards, H. M. Linear Algebra (Springer Science+Business Media, 1995)

1995
[71]

Greub, W. H. Linear Algebra (Springer Science+Business Media, 1967), 3 edn

1967
[72]

Linear Algebra (2017), 3 edn

Heﬀerson, J. Linear Algebra (2017), 3 edn. URL http://joshua.smcvt.edu/linearalgebra

2017
[73]

Introduction to Linear Algebra (Springer Science+Business Media, 1986), 2 edn

Lang, S. Introduction to Linear Algebra (Springer Science+Business Media, 1986), 2 edn

1986
[74]

Linear Algebra (Springer Science+Business Media, 2012)

Petersen, P. Linear Algebra (Springer Science+Business Media, 2012)

2012
[75]

Linear Algebra for everyone (Springer-Verlag Italia, 2011)

Robbiano, L. Linear Algebra for everyone (Springer-Verlag Italia, 2011)

2011
[76]

Linear Algebra and Its Applications (Thomson Learning, 2006), 4 edn

Strang, G. Linear Algebra and Its Applications (Thomson Learning, 2006), 4 edn

2006
[77]

Linear algebra done wrong (2017)

Treil, S. Linear algebra done wrong (2017). URL https://www.math.brown.edu/~treil/papers/ LADW/LADW.html

2017
[78]

& Tarau, P

Mihalcea, R. & Tarau, P. TextRank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2004, 404–411 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, 2004). URL https://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/W04-3252

2004
[79]

H., Garten, Y., Musen, M

Coulet, A., Shah, N. H., Garten, Y., Musen, M. & Altman, R. B. Using text to build semantic networks for pharmacogenomics. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 43, 1009 – 1019 (2010). URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046410001164. 21

2010
[80]

G´ abor, K. et al. SemEval-2018 task 7: Semantic relation extraction and classiﬁcation in scientiﬁc papers. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation , 679–688 (Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2018). URL https...

2018
[81]

& Hahn, U

Wermter, J. & Hahn, U. You can’t beat frequency (unless you use linguistic knowledge): A qualitative evaluation of association measures for collocation and term extraction. In Proceedings of the 21st Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual M...

2006
[82]

Word space

Sch¨ utze, H. Word space. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5 , 895–902 (Morgan Kaufmann, 1993)

1993
[83]

& Lowe, W

Mcdonald, S. & Lowe, W. Modelling functional priming and the associative boost. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , 675–680 (Erlbaum, 1998)

1998
[84]

Bullinaria, J. A. & Levy, J. P. Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods 39, 510–526 (2007). URL https://doi.org/10. 3758/BF03193020

2007
[85]

& Nobel, A

Palowitch, J., Bhamidi, S. & Nobel, A. B. Signiﬁcance-based community detection in weighteds net- works. Journal of Machine Learning Research 18, 1–48 (2018). URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/ 17-377.html

2018
[86]

value”,which plays an important role in linear algebra phrases such as “singular value decomposition

Vallat, R. Pingouin: statistics in python. The Journal of Open Source Software 3, 1026 (2018). 22 Summary of Supplementary Material In this supplementary document, we provide supplemental methods, followed by supplemental results. We conclude with additional discussion relevan...

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sowa, J. F. Semantic Networks (John Wiley & Sons, 2006). URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/0470018860.s00065

doi:10.1002/0470018860.s00065 2006

[2] [2]

Epistemology

Steup, M. Epistemology. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018), winter 2018 edn

2018

[3] [3]

Hartley, R. T. & Barnden, J. A. Semantic networks: visualizations of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1, 169 – 175 (1997)

1997

[4] [4]

Semantic networks

Lehmann, F. Semantic networks. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 23, 1 – 50 (1992)

1992

[5] [5]

& Gabrilovich, E

Nickel, M., Murphy, K., Tresp, V. & Gabrilovich, E. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 11–33 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

& Tenenbaum, J

Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B. The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cogn Sci 29, 41–78 (2005)

2005

[7] [7]

Gallenstein, N

L. Gallenstein, N. Mathematics concept maps: assessing connections. Teaching Children Mathematics 17, 436–440 (2011)

2011

[8] [8]

& McClelland, G

Broggy, J. & McClelland, G. Integrating concept mapping into higher education: A case study with physics education students in an irish university. British Education Research Association Annual Con- ference Manchester, Sept (2009)

work page 2009