Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3308558.3313748acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesthewebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Decoupled Smoothing on Graphs

Published: 13 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Graph smoothing methods are an extremely popular family of approaches for semi-supervised learning. The choice of graph used to represent relationships in these learning problems is often a more important decision than the particular algorithm or loss function used, yet this choice is less well-studied in the literature. In this work, we demonstrate that for social networks, the basic friendship graph itself may often not be the appropriate graph for predicting node attributes using graph smoothing. More specifically, standard graph smoothing is designed to harness the social phenomenon of homophily whereby individuals are similar to “the company they keep.” We present a decoupled approach to graph smoothing that decouples notions of “identity” and “preference,” resulting in an alternative social phenomenon of monophily whereby individuals are similar to “the company they're kept in,” as observed in recent empirical work. Our model results in a rigorous extension of the Gaussian Markov Random Field (GMRF) models that underlie graph smoothing, interpretable as smoothing on an appropriate auxiliary graph of weighted or unweighted two-hop relationships.

References

[1]
Kristen M Altenburger and Johan Ugander. 2018. Monophily in social networks introduces similarity among friends-of-friends. Nature Human Behaviour 2, 4 (2018), 284.
[2]
Reid Andersen, Fan Chung, and Kevin Lang. 2006. Local graph partitioning using PageRank vectors. In null. IEEE, 475-486.
[3]
Shumeet Baluja, Rohan Seth, D Sivakumar, Yushi Jing, Jay Yagnik, Shankar Kumar, Deepak Ravichandran, and Mohamed Aly. 2008. Video suggestion and discovery for YouTube: taking random walks through the view graph. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 895-904.
[4]
Mikhail Belkin, Irina Matveeva, and Partha Niyogi. 2004. Regularization and semi-supervised learning on large graphs. In International Conference on Computational Learning Theory. Springer, 624-638.
[5]
Julian Besag. 1974. Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) (1974), 192-236.
[6]
Julian Besag, Jeremy York, Annie Mollie´, 1991. Bayesian image restoration, with two applications in spatial statistics. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 43, 1(1991), 1-20.
[7]
Smriti Bhagat, Graham Cormode, and S Muthukrishnan. 2011. Node classification in social networks. In Social Network Data Analytics. Springer, 115-148.
[8]
Leo Breiman. 1996. Stacked regressions. Machine Learning 24, 1 (1996), 49-64.
[9]
D Brook. 1964. On the distinction between the conditional probability and the joint probability approaches in the specification of nearest-neighbour systems. Biometrika 51, 3/4 (1964), 481-483.
[10]
Robert T Clemen and Robert L Winkler. 1999. Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis 19, 2 (1999), 187-203.
[11]
William G Cochran. 1937. Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 4, 1(1937), 102-118.
[12]
William G Cochran. 1954. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 10, 1 (1954), 101-129.
[13]
Ahmed El Alaoui, Xiang Cheng, Aaditya Ramdas, Martin J Wainwright, and Michael I Jordan. 2016. Asymptotic behavior of\ell_p-based laplacian regularization in semi-supervised learning. In Conference on Learning Theory. 879-906.
[14]
William R Fairweather. 1972. A method of obtaining an exact confidence interval for the common mean of several normal populations. Applied Statistics (1972), 229-233.
[15]
Max Halperin. 1961. Almost linearly-optimum combination of unbiased estimates. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 56, 293 (1961), 36-43.
[16]
Paul W Holland, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey, and Samuel Leinhardt. 1983. Stochastic blockmodels: First steps. Social networks 5, 2 (1983), 109-137.
[17]
Kyle Kloster and David F Gleich. 2014. Heat kernel based community detection. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1386-1395.
[18]
Isabel M Kloumann, Johan Ugander, and Jon Kleinberg. 2017. Block models and personalized PageRank. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 1 (2017), 33-38.
[19]
Fre´de´ric Lavancier and Paul Rochet. 2016. A general procedure to combine estimators. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 94 (2016), 175-192.
[20]
Tianxi Li, Elizaveta Levina, and Ji Zhu. 2016. Prediction models for network-linked data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.01192(2016).
[21]
Sofus A Macskassy and Foster Provost. 2007. Classification in networked data: A toolkit and a univariate case study. Journal of Machine Learning Research 8, May (2007), 935-983.
[22]
Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology 27, 1 (2001), 415-444.
[23]
Ronny Meir. 1995. Bias, variance and the combination of least squares estimators. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 295-302.
[24]
Boaz Nadler, Nathan Srebro, and Xueyuan Zhou. 2009. Semi-supervised learning with the graph Laplacian: The limit of infinite unlabelled data. (2009).
[25]
Leto Peel. 2016. Graph-based semi-supervised learning for relational networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.05001(2016).
[26]
JNK Rao and Kathleen Subrahmaniam. 1971. Combining independent estimators and estimation in linear regression with unequal variances. Biometrics (1971), 971-990.
[27]
Amanda L Traud, Eric D Kelsic, Peter J Mucha, and Mason A Porter. 2011. Comparing community structure to characteristics in online collegiate social networks. SIAM review 53, 3 (2011), 526-543.
[28]
Amanda L Traud, Peter J Mucha, and Mason A Porter. 2012. Social structure of Facebook networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 391, 16(2012), 4165-4180.
[29]
Robert L Winkler. 1981. Combining probability distributions from dependent information sources. Management Science 27, 4 (1981), 479-488.
[30]
Ya Xu, Justin S Dyer, and Art B Owen. 2010. Empirical stationary correlations for semi-supervised learning on graphs. The Annals of Applied Statistics(2010), 589-614.
[31]
Denny Zhou, Olivier Bousquet, Thomas N Lal, Jason Weston, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2004. Learning with local and global consistency. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 321-328.
[32]
Xiaojin Zhu. 2006. Semi-supervised learning literature survey. Computer Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2, 3(2006), 4.
[33]
Xiaojin Zhu, Zoubin Ghahramani, and John D Lafferty. 2003. Semi-supervised learning using gaussian fields and harmonic functions. In Proceedings of the 20th International conference on Machine learning (ICML-03). 912-919.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)SPMGAE: Self-purified masked graph autoencoders release robust expression powerNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128631611(128631)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2023)Trust Your Good Friends: Source-Free Domain Adaptation by Reciprocal Neighborhood ClusteringIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence10.1109/TPAMI.2023.331079145:12(15883-15895)Online publication date: Dec-2023
  • (2023)Graph-based methods for discrete choiceNetwork Science10.1017/nws.2023.20(1-20)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference
May 2019
3620 pages
ISBN:9781450366748
DOI:10.1145/3308558
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

  • IW3C2: International World Wide Web Conference Committee

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 May 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Semi-supervised learning
  2. attribute prediction
  3. graph smoothing

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

WWW '19
WWW '19: The Web Conference
May 13 - 17, 2019
CA, San Francisco, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)33
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 17 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)SPMGAE: Self-purified masked graph autoencoders release robust expression powerNeurocomputing10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128631611(128631)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2023)Trust Your Good Friends: Source-Free Domain Adaptation by Reciprocal Neighborhood ClusteringIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence10.1109/TPAMI.2023.331079145:12(15883-15895)Online publication date: Dec-2023
  • (2023)Graph-based methods for discrete choiceNetwork Science10.1017/nws.2023.20(1-20)Online publication date: 6-Nov-2023
  • (2021)Nonlinear Higher-Order Label SpreadingProceedings of the Web Conference 202110.1145/3442381.3450035(2402-2413)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2021
  • (2021)A comparison of statistical relational learning and graph neural networks for aggregate graph queriesMachine Learning10.1007/s10994-021-06007-5110:7(1847-1866)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2021
  • (2020)Beyond homophily in graph neural networksProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3495724.3496377(7793-7804)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2020
  • (2019)Structured graph learning via laplacian spectral constraintsProceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3454287.3455332(11651-11663)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2019

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media