Fine-grained graph representation learning for heterogeneous mobile networks with attentive fusion and contrastive learning

Ningning Fu; Shengheng Liu; Tianqi Zhang; Yongming Huang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Fine-grained graph representation learning for heterogeneous mobile networks with attentive fusion and contrastive learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes DMGSL, an unsupervised framework that learns and refines the structure of wireless data knowledge graphs, and shows it outperforms existing graph structure learning baselines on node classification.

desk verdict A useful application idea undone by a constant loss as printed and an under-powered evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07809 v1 pith:2YW2GUX7 submitted 2024-12-10 cs.LG cs.AIcs.NI

Shengheng Liu , Tianqi Zhang , Ningning Fu , Yongming Huang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.NI

keywords graphstructurelearningwirelessdataknowledgeheterogeneouscontrastivetemporalattentionhierarchicalnodeclassificationmobilenetworks

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

The paper introduces wireless data knowledge graphs (WDKGs) as a representational tool for telecom big data and argues that manually building or updating them is too costly and error-prone. It proposes DMGSL, an unsupervised graph structure learning framework that refines the WDKG by slicing it by edge type (causal, implicit, explicit) and by coherence-time snapshots, then fusing the slices with hierarchical attention and the snapshots with LSTM and temporal attention. A contrastive loss aligns the learned graph with an expert-built anchor graph, so the learning process is guided by expert knowledge without node labels. The central claim is that this framework outperforms existing structure learning baselines on the WDKG node classification task, with accuracy rising from $0.6125 \pm 0.0468$ for the best baseline (Sublime) to $0.7000 \pm 0.0250$ for DMGSL. If the claim holds, network operators could automate the constant updating of the knowledge graphs their self-driving systems depend on.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the paired anchor graph and learned graph. The anchor graph is the expert-provided adjacency matrix separated into three edge types (causal, implicit, explicit); the learned graph is produced by a full parameterization learner from node features. Hierarchical attention learns a weight per edge type and merges the slices, while the temporal attention module uses LSTM states and multi-head self-attention to combine coherence-time snapshots. A contrastive loss (cosine similarity in a projected space) then maximizes agreement between the two graph representations, making the expert anchor the training signal for unsupervised structure learning.

What would settle it

Train the exact same node classifier on the raw expert adjacency matrix, without any structure learning, and compare its accuracy to DMGSL's 0.70 on identical train/validation/test splits; if the raw graph classifier matches or exceeds that accuracy, the claim that the framework refines the graph structure is falsified. As a second check, rerun DMGSL with the expert adjacency matrix randomly shuffled; if classification accuracy does not drop to chance, the method is not actually relying on the anchor graph as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a dynamic heterogeneous knowledge graph built from mobile network data can be refined automatically by an unsupervised, attention-based structure learning method. The method slices the graph by relation type and by coherence-time snapshots, learns each slice with hierarchical attention, fuses historical snapshots with an LSTM and temporal attention, and aligns the learned graph with an expert-built anchor graph through a contrastive loss. The reported outcome is that node classification on the WDKG rises from $0.6125 \pm 0.0468$ accuracy with the best baseline (Sublime) to $0.7000 \pm 0.0250$ with DMGSL, with consistent gains in precision, recall, and F1-score.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the expert-built anchor graph, used as the target in the contrastive loss, is a reliable and sufficiently complete guide for what the refined wireless knowledge graph should look like; if that expert graph is wrong or missing edges, the learned structure will inherit those mistakes, and the measured accuracy gain may mostly be the expert prior rather than the learning framework.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

WDKG updates can be partially automated: the framework outputs a refined adjacency matrix that can replace or supplement manually maintained relations as network conditions change.
Treating edge types separately before fusion is better than processing all relations together; ablations show removing either the hierarchical or temporal attention module lowers classification performance.
The learned structures contain more relations than the raw expert graph while avoiding scattered spurious edges, suggesting the method can both add and prune relations.
The resulting node embeddings, trained without downstream labels, support node classification well enough to indicate the learned structure carries meaningful semantic information.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: because the contrastive loss pulls the learned graph toward the expert anchor, DMGSL is best understood as propagating and refining expert knowledge rather than discovering structure from data alone; a corrupted-anchor experiment would show how much the output tracks the expert prior.
Editorial inference: the coherence-time slicing ties the method to physical channel dynamics, but the same snapshot-plus-attention recipe should transfer to any dynamic networked system with a known time constant, such as traffic or power grids.
Editorial inference: the reported gains could partly reflect the expert prior rather than structure learning, since no classification baseline uses the raw expert graph alone; adding that baseline would separate the two contributions.
Editorial inference: the framework's 'unsupervised' claim is relative—it avoids node labels but still requires expert knowledge as the anchor topology, so its autonomy depends on the quality and coverage of that prior.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Short version: this is a plausible engineering paper — applying graph structure learning to wireless knowledge graphs, with a real collected dataset — but the version under review has a textbook-quality flaw in its central loss and an evaluation that is too thin to support the claim.

What's new: the application domain. WDKGs are manually built and the authors propose an unsupervised pipeline that slices a heterogeneous dynamic graph into homogeneous layers, uses hierarchical edge-type attention and temporal LSTM+attention, and uses contrastive learning against an expert anchor graph. The components are from earlier work (HAN, DySAT, Sublime), but the combination is new for telecom network data. That's a legitimate contribution to applied graph learning.

The paper does a few things well: it describes the data collection (AGV with throughput measurements, 82 fields, three edge types), it gives a clear problem statement, and the ablation shows both attention modules help beyond their absence. The heatmaps are a nice qualitative touch.

Now the soft spots, in increasing order of severity. The test set is tiny: 20% of 82 nodes is about 16. A difference of 0.0875 accuracy is roughly 1.4 nodes, and with standard deviations like 0.025 it's not clear this is significant. No raw-graph baseline: they never report classification accuracy using the expert adjacency matrix directly. Since the whole method is trained to resemble the anchor graph, the 'refinement' claim needs that baseline to be meaningful. Hyperparameter sensitivity is explored, but with such a small graph, tuning on the same data risks overfitting. Only one of the two datasets mentioned appears in Table 1. Code and data are promised 'upon acceptance' — a common but unhelpful policy.

The load-bearing issue is Eq. (7)-(8). As printed, the denominator in Eq. (8) sums over k a term that does not depend on k, so the loss is identically -log n and has zero gradient. The paper shows training curves and hyperparameter plots, so the authors must have implemented a different loss. I suspect a typo (missing y_{l,k} or y_{a,k} in the denominator), but as written the central objective is inert. That is not something a reader can fix on the author's behalf; it has to be corrected.

The reader's circularity concern is real but secondary. The contrastive loss does pull the learned graph toward the expert anchor. The bootstrap mechanism in Appendix C shows the authors are aware, and it can help, but without a raw-graph baseline the added value of 'learning' the structure is unproven.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee because the problem is worth solving and the method is plausible, but it is not publishable as is. The authors need to fix the loss, add the missing baselines, report significance, and release data and code. I'd send it to review, but with a strong expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DMGSL, an unsupervised graph structure learning framework for wireless data knowledge graphs (WDKGs). It slices a heterogeneous dynamic network into homogeneous layers and temporal snapshots, uses a hierarchical attention module to merge edge-type-specific views, a temporal attention module with LSTM and multi-head attention to capture dynamics, and a contrastive learning module to align a learned graph with an expert-constructed anchor graph. Experiments on one WDKG dataset report that DMGSL outperforms several GSL baselines on node classification accuracy. The central claim is that the learned structure meaningfully refines expert knowledge and improves downstream classification.

Significance. If the claimed results were substantiated, the paper would offer a practically motivated application of fine-grained graph structure learning to telecom knowledge graphs, an area with real operational relevance. The modular architecture (hierarchical attention, temporal attention, contrastive refinement) is reasonable and the authors explicitly report standard deviations. However, the central empirical claim is not currently supported: the printed contrastive loss is mathematically inert, the evaluation has major gaps (no raw-graph baseline, a very small test set, and only one of two datasets reported), and the learning signal is essentially fitted to the expert anchor graph. The paper does not provide code or data, so the results are not independently reproducible. With substantial revision and re-experimentation, the contribution could be of interest to the mobile-networking and graph-learning communities, but in its present form the evidence is insufficient.

major comments (4)

[Contrastive learning module, Eq. (8)] The contrastive loss as printed is constant. In Eq. (8), the denominator summand exp(sim(ya,i,yl,i)/p) does not depend on the summation index k, so the denominator equals n times the numerator, the fraction is identically 1/n, and ℓ(ya,i,yl,i) = log(1/n) for every i. Consequently L in Eq. (7) is the constant -log n and has zero gradient with respect to all model parameters. This contradicts the reported training dynamics in Fig. 6(a) and the hyperparameter sensitivity in Fig. 7, both of which require a non-constant, parameter-dependent loss. As written, DMGSL cannot learn or refine graph structure, and Table 1 cannot be attributed to the described method. The authors must correct the equation (presumably the denominator should sum over k of a term that depends on k, such as sim(ya,i, yl,k)) and re-run the experiments; otherwise the central empirical claim is unsupported.
[Contrastive learning module and Appendix C] The design is circular with respect to the expert prior. The contrastive loss in Eqs. (7)–(8) directly maximizes the similarity between the learned graph and the expert-built anchor graph, and Appendix C explicitly states that the anchor graph is updated to prevent the learned adjacency from becoming "too similar" to the expert knowledge graph. This confirms that the learned structure is pulled toward the expert graph. Since the paper provides no baseline using the raw expert graph directly (e.g., GCN on the original adjacency matrix) and no ground-truth structure for the WDKG, the reported accuracy gain over structure-learning baselines cannot be separated from the benefit of simply using the expert prior. A raw-graph baseline and a discussion of what the learned structure adds beyond the expert anchor are needed to support the claim of data-driven refinement.
[Experiments, Table 1 and Appendix A] The evaluation is incomplete. Two datasets are described in Appendix B (Uplink throughput with 15-minute and 35-minute windows), but Table 1 reports results only for the 35-minute data. With 82 nodes and a 6:2:2 split, the test set has roughly 16 nodes, so the accuracy values and standard deviations in Table 1 are based on a very small sample. Furthermore, hyperparameters (k, τ, feature mask rates, learning rate) are selected by tuning on the same dataset used for evaluation, which risks overfitting and weakens the generality of the conclusions. The authors should report both datasets, include confidence intervals for the test-set size, and use nested or held-out validation for hyperparameter selection.
[Problem Definition and Methodology] The terminology "unsupervised" is inaccurate for the proposed method. The contrastive objective in Eqs. (7)–(8) uses the expert-constructed anchor graph as the supervisory target, which is a self-supervised signal derived from expert knowledge rather than from unlabeled data alone. This distinction matters for the claim of 'data-and-model driven' structure learning: the model is not learning purely from data but is being fitted to an expert prior. The authors should clarify this terminology and discuss the implications for the method's ability to correct errors in the expert graph.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The abstract states 'Extensive experiments conducted on the established WDKG', but the evaluation actually reports one dataset and one task; this overstates the experimental scope.
[Hierarchical attention module] In the list of initial matrices, the terms 'Et2,a' appear twice and 'Et3,a' is missing; the enumeration should be corrected to Et1,a, Et2,a, Et3,a.
[Temporal attention model] The phrase 'scaling dot multiplication attention' should be 'scaled dot-product attention' to match the standard terminology.
[Eq. (4)] The masking matrix definition is unclear: the condition 'If Muη = −∞' should use explicit subscripts (e.g., M_{uη}) and clearly state that the mask is applied before softmax.
[Appendix C] There is a typo: 'every10 epoches' should be 'every 10 epochs'.
[Table 1] The entry '0.373 6+/-0.1343' appears to have a missing space and an odd decimal; it should read '0.3736 ± 0.1343'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the expert-anchor contrastive objective is a training prior, and the headline result is an external node-classification benchmark; the degenerate Eq. (8) is a correctness defect, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain—refining a WDKG adjacency from features and an expert-built anchor graph through hierarchical/temporal attention and contrastive learning—does not reduce to its inputs in a circular way. The contrastive loss in Eqs. (7)-(8) does pull the learned representation toward the expert anchor, but the central quantitative claim is held-out node classification accuracy against structure-learning baselines (Table 1), which is an external benchmark, not the training objective. The expert WDKG is cited from prior work by overlapping authors (Huang et al. 2024), but that citation establishes the input dataset/provenance and is not a load-bearing theorem; it is not circularity under the stated rules. The absence of a raw-expert-graph classification baseline weakens the 'refinement' interpretation, and the printed Eq. (8) is mathematically inert—its denominator summand is independent of k, making the loss constant and the training signal zero—but that is a correctness/validity defect, not a circular equivalence. No step in the paper's argument exhibits a prediction or first-principles result that is equivalent to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the expert-built anchor graph being a reliable training target, the coherence-time snapshot segmentation being valid, and the three edge types capturing the network's heterogeneity. The contrastive loss makes the learned graph a fitted version of the expert graph, which is the main circularity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

FGP learned adjacency entries = learned, not reported
The full graph parameterization learner assigns a trainable parameter to every potential edge (n^2 for n=82), directly producing the learned adjacency matrix that is aligned with the expert anchor graph in the contrastive loss.
Number of nearest neighbors k = 2
Selected by grid search 1-10 on the validation data; determines sparsity of the learned topology.
Anchor update ratio tau = 0.99
Controls how much the anchor graph is updated during training; chosen by inspecting loss curves (Appendix C).
Feature mask rates ra and rl = 0.4 and 0.8
Chosen by grid search on validation to maximize classification metrics (Fig. 4).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The expert-built WDKG adjacency matrix is a reliable prior for the true network structure
The anchor graph is constructed from expert knowledge and used as the target in the contrastive loss (Eq. 7-8). If it is wrong or incomplete, the learned graph inherits these errors; the paper provides no ground truth to validate the expert graph.
domain assumption The network dynamics can be segmented into static snapshots using coherence time
The Problem Definition and Temporal Attention Module assume coherence time divides the dynamic graph into static snapshots. The paper does not describe how the measured 15/35-minute datasets were divided into snapshots, so this assumption is unverified.
domain assumption The three edge types (causal, explicit, implicit) in the expert graph are sufficient to represent the heterogeneity of the WDKG
The hierarchical attention module slices the network into exactly three sub-networks based on these edge types. If other relation types matter, the model cannot learn them.
standard math LSTM, multi-head attention, and GCN behave as standard in the literature
The method relies on well-established neural network components; these are not proved but standard.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fine-grained graph representation learning for heterogeneous mobile networks with attentive fusion and contrastive learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2YW2GUX7

@misc{pith2026241207809,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fine-grained graph representation learning for heterogeneous mobile networks with attentive fusion and contrastive learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2YW2GUX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07809}
}

read the original abstract

AI becomes increasingly vital for telecom industry, as the burgeoning complexity of upcoming mobile communication networks places immense pressure on network operators. While there is a growing consensus that intelligent network self-driving holds the key, it heavily relies on expert experience and knowledge extracted from network data. In an effort to facilitate convenient analytics and utilization of wireless big data, we introduce the concept of knowledge graphs into the field of mobile networks, giving rise to what we term as wireless data knowledge graphs (WDKGs). However, the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of communication networks renders manual WDKG construction both prohibitively costly and error-prone, presenting a fundamental challenge. In this context, we propose an unsupervised data-and-model driven graph structure learning (DMGSL) framework, aimed at automating WDKG refinement and updating. Tackling WDKG heterogeneity involves stratifying the network into homogeneous layers and refining it at a finer granularity. Furthermore, to capture WDKG dynamics effectively, we segment the network into static snapshots based on the coherence time and harness the power of recurrent neural networks to incorporate historical information. Extensive experiments conducted on the established WDKG demonstrate the superiority of the DMGSL over the baselines, particularly in terms of node classification accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07809 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Schematic diagram of hierarchical attention module. The input is the adjacency matrix constructed by experts and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Heatmaps of adjacency matrices. Dataset Method Accuracy Precision Recall F1-score IDGL 0.4375 +/- 0.1046 0.3515 +/- 0.1467 0.4375 +/- 0.1046 0.373 6+/-0.1343 IDGL-Anch 0.3625 +/-0.1000 0.2221 +/-0.1367 0.3625 +/- 0.1000 0.2571 +/- 0.1332 SLAPS 0.5875 +/- 0.0637 0.4764 +/- 0.1268 0.5875 +/- 0.0637 0.5100 +/- 0.0974 Uplink throughput SLAPS-2s 0.6000 +/- 0.0637 0.5525 +/- 0.0788 0.6000 +/- 0.0729 0.5224 +/- 0.0766 data… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Performance with different model configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a). We readily observe that, when τ is 0.9, the contrastive loss shows a rapid downward trend initially but continues to decrease without a convergence trend as epochs increase. This is due to the rapid variation of the anchor graph, which causes unstable learning.…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Influence of hyperparameters to classification per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Chen, Y.; Wu, L.; and Zaki, M. J. 2020. Iterative Deep Graph Learning for Graph Neural Networks: Better and Robust Node Embeddings. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 19314–19326. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Curran Associates Inc

work page 2020
[4]

R.; Wu, C

Chi, H. R.; Wu, C. K.; Huang, N.-F.; Tsang, K.-F.; and Radwan, A. 2023. A Survey of Network Automation for Industrial Internet-of-Things Toward Industry 5.0. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(2): 2065--2077

work page 2023
[5]

Fatemi, B.; El Asri, L.; and Kazemi, S. M. 2021. SLAPS: Self-Supervision Improves Structure Learning for Graph Neural Networks. In Ranzato, M.; Beygelzimer, A.; Dauphin, Y.; Liang, P.; and Vaughan, J. W., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS 2021), 22667--22681. Online: Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2021
[6]

Franceschi, L.; Niepert, M.; Pontil, M.; and He, X. 2019. Learning Discrete Structures for Graph Neural Networks. In Chaudhuri, K.; and Salakhutdinov, R., eds., Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1972--1982. Long Beach, California, USA: PMLR

work page 2019
[7]

Huang, C.; Yang, Z.; Wen, J.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Yang, J.; and Wang, Y. 2022. Self-Supervision-Augmented Deep Autoencoder for Unsupervised Visual Anomaly Detection. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 52(12): 13834 -- 13847

work page 2022
[8]

Huang, Y.; You, X.; Zhan, H.; He, S.; Fu, N.; and Xu, W. 2024. Learning Wireless Data Knowledge Graph for Green Intelligent Communications: Methodology and Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, in press, (DOI: 10.1109/TMC.2024.3408142)

arXiv 2024

Show all 18 references

[9]

Jin, W.; Ma, Y.; Liu, X.; Tang, X.; Wang, S.; and Tang, J. 2020. Graph Structure Learning for Robust Graph Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 66–74. Virtual Event, CA, USA: Association for Compu...

2020
[10]

Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, D.; Chen, H.; Peng, H.; and Pan, S. 2022. Towards Unsupervised Deep Graph Structure Learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, 1392–1403. Virtual Event, Lyon, France: Association for Computing Machinery

2022
[11]

Sankar, A.; Wu, Y.; Gou, L.; Zhang, W.; and Yang, H. 2020. DySAT: Deep Neural Representation Learning on Dynamic Graphs via Self-Attention Networks. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM 2020), 519–527. Houston, TX, USA: Associ...

2020
[12]

van den Oord, A.; Li, Y.; and Vinyals, O. 2019. Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding. arXiv:1807.03748

2019 arXiv
[13]

Wang, R.; Mou, S.; Wang, X.; Xiao, W.; Ju, Q.; Shi, C.; and Xie, X. 2021. Graph Structure Estimation Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, 342–353. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Association for Computing Machinery

2021
[14]

Wang, X.; Lu, Y.; Shi, C.; Wang, R.; Cui, P.; and Mou, S. 2022. Dynamic Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding With Meta-Path Based Proximity. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 34(3): 1117--1132

2022
[15]

Yang, L.; Xiao, Z.; Jiang, W.; Wei, Y.; Hu, Y.; and Wang, H. 2020. Dynamic heterogeneous graph embedding using hierarchical attentions. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 425 ...

2020
[16]

You, X.; Huang, Y.; et al. 2023. Toward 6G TK Extreme Connectivity: Architecture, Key Technologies and Experiments. IEEE Wireless Communications, 30(3): 86--95

2023
[17]

Yu, D.; Zhang, R.; Jiang, Z.; Wu, Y.; and Yang, Y. 2021. Graph-Revised Convolutional Network. In Hutter, F.; Kersting, K.; Lijffijt, J.; and Valera, I., eds., Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 378--393. Cham: Springer International Publishing

2021
[18]

Zhu, B.; Jiao, J.; and Tse, D. 2020. Deconstructing Generative Adversarial Networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 66(11): 7155--7179

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Chen, Y.; Wu, L.; and Zaki, M. J. 2020. Iterative Deep Graph Learning for Graph Neural Networks: Better and Robust Node Embeddings. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 19314–19326. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Curran Associates Inc

work page 2020

[4] [4]

R.; Wu, C

Chi, H. R.; Wu, C. K.; Huang, N.-F.; Tsang, K.-F.; and Radwan, A. 2023. A Survey of Network Automation for Industrial Internet-of-Things Toward Industry 5.0. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 19(2): 2065--2077

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Fatemi, B.; El Asri, L.; and Kazemi, S. M. 2021. SLAPS: Self-Supervision Improves Structure Learning for Graph Neural Networks. In Ranzato, M.; Beygelzimer, A.; Dauphin, Y.; Liang, P.; and Vaughan, J. W., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS 2021), 22667--22681. Online: Curran Associates, Inc

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Franceschi, L.; Niepert, M.; Pontil, M.; and He, X. 2019. Learning Discrete Structures for Graph Neural Networks. In Chaudhuri, K.; and Salakhutdinov, R., eds., Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1972--1982. Long Beach, California, USA: PMLR

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Huang, C.; Yang, Z.; Wen, J.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Yang, J.; and Wang, Y. 2022. Self-Supervision-Augmented Deep Autoencoder for Unsupervised Visual Anomaly Detection. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 52(12): 13834 -- 13847

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Huang, Y.; You, X.; Zhan, H.; He, S.; Fu, N.; and Xu, W. 2024. Learning Wireless Data Knowledge Graph for Green Intelligent Communications: Methodology and Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, in press, (DOI: 10.1109/TMC.2024.3408142)

arXiv 2024