MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090314173 · doi:10.3233/faia200308

Link Prediction by Analyzing Common Neighbors Based Subgraphs Using Convolutional Neural Network

2020· book-chapter· en· W3090314173 on OpenAlexaff
Kumaran Ragunathan, Kalyani Selvarajah, Ziad Kobti

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkLink (geometry)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Link prediction (LP) in social networks is to infer if a link is likely to be formed in the future. Social networks (SN) are ubiquitous and have different types such as human interaction and protein-protein networks. LP uses heuristic methods including common neighbors and resource allocation to find the formation of future links. These heuristics are sensitive to different types of social networks. Certain types of heuristics work better for some SN types, but not for others. Selecting the appropriate heuristic method for the SN type is often a trial and error process. Recent ground-breaking methods, WLMN and SEAL, demonstrated that this selection process can be automated for the different types of SN. While these methods are promising, in some types of SN they still suffer from low accuracy. The objective of this paper is to address this weakness by introducing a novel framework called PLACN that incorporates the analysis of common neighbors of nodes on target link and a combination of heuristic features through a deep learning method. PLACN is driven by a new method to efficiently extract the subgraphs for a target link based on the common neighbors. Another novelty is the method for labeling subgraphs based on the average hop and average weight. Furthermore, we introduce a method to evaluate the approximate number of nodes in the subgraph. Our model converts link prediction to an image classification problem and uses a convolutional neural network. We tested our model on seven real-world networks and compared against traditional LP methods as well as two recent state-of-the-art methods based on subgraphs. Our results outperformed those LP methods reaching above 96% of AUC in benchmark SNs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in artificial intelligence and applicationsSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207