REVIEW 1 cited by
Link Prediction in Bipartite Networks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Bipartite networks serve as highly suitable models to represent systems involving interactions between two distinct types of entities, such as online dating platforms, job search services, or ecommerce websites. These models can be leveraged to tackle a number of tasks, including link prediction among the most useful ones, especially to design recommendation systems. However, if this task has garnered much interest when conducted on unipartite (i.e. standard) networks, it is far from being the case for bipartite ones. In this study, we address this gap by performing an experimental comparison of 19 link prediction methods able to handle bipartite graphs. Some come directly from the literature, and some are adapted by us from techniques originally designed for unipartite networks. We also propose to repurpose recommendation systems based on graph convolutional networks (GCN) as a novel link prediction solution for bipartite networks. To conduct our experiments, we constitute a benchmark of 3 real-world bipartite network datasets with various topologies. Our results indicate that GCN-based personalized recommendation systems, which have received significant attention in recent years, can produce successful results for link prediction in bipartite networks. Furthermore, purely heuristic metrics that do not rely on any learning process, like the Structural Perturbation Method (SPM), can also achieve success.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Bridging AI and Science: Implications from a Large-Scale Literature Analysis of AI4Science
Using LLM-extracted labels from 162,656 papers, this analysis shows that AI4Science connections are sparse and uneven, with a few hub areas dominating while many scientific problems and AI methods remain weakly linked.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.