Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Data Pricing for Graph Neural Networks without Pre-purchased Inspection

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that graph data for GNN training can be priced and procured through a structural-importance auction that is incentive-compatible, individually rational, and budget-feasible, without any pre-purchase inspection.

desk verdict New problem and solid experiments, but the central incentive-compatibility theorem is false; the mechanism is not IC as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08284 v1 pith:4O6SLHCL submitted 2025-02-12 cs.GT cs.LG

Yiping Liu , Mengxiao Zhang , Jiamou Liu , Song Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTcs.LG
keywords modelmarketplacedatapricingstructuralentropygraphneuralnetworksincentivecompatibilitybudgetfeasiblemechanismsprocurementauctionmechanism
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 attacks a chicken-and-egg problem in model marketplaces: a buyer wants graph data to train a graph neural network, but data owners refuse to share data before being paid, and no one can price data they have not seen. The authors propose SIMT, which scores each node's importance purely from graph structure—using a cluster-based marginal structural entropy for informativeness and PageRank centrality for representativeness—then runs a per-cluster budget-feasible auction that selects cost-effective nodes and pays their owners. They prove that SIMT is incentive compatible, individually rational, and budget feasible, meaning truthful reporting is optimal, no owner is worse off by participating, and total payments stay within budget. On five benchmark graphs, SIMT beats the tested baselines by up to 40% in MacroF1 and MicroF1 under the same budgets. The significance is that it removes the unrealistic pre-purchase inspection assumption while still training a working GNN on a purchased fraction of the graph.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the structural importance score $\phi_v = (1-\alpha)\phi_v^{\mathrm{rep}} + \alpha \phi_v^{\mathrm{info}}$ for each node $v$. Here $\phi_v^{\mathrm{info}}$ is the normalized marginal structural entropy of $v$, the relative drop in structural entropy when $v$ is moved out of its cluster (lower means more informative), and $\phi_v^{\mathrm{rep}}$ is $v$'s PageRank centrality rank within its cluster (higher means more representative). The clusters themselves are learned by an unsupervised graph auto-encoder that approximately maximizes structural entropy. These scores are then combined with reported costs in a per-cluster budget-feasible auction with threshold pricing, and the procured data is completed with feature propagation and edge augmentation before the GNN is trained.

What would settle it

Take a two-owner graph where owner A holds two nodes and owner B holds one node, with structural scores and B's cost chosen so that A's reported cost determines whether B is the first fully unselected owner. Compute A's utility when reporting truthfully and when reporting a slightly lower cost for one node; if the lower report raises A's total payment minus true cost, Theorem 4.2's incentive-compatibility claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 4.2: the SIMT mechanism is incentive compatible, individually rational, and budget feasible. The mechanism splits nodes into structural clusters, sorts each cluster's nodes by the ratio of structural importance score to reported cost, buys the top k nodes until the cluster budget is exhausted, and pays each selected node the smaller of a proportional share of the cluster budget and the price implied by the first owner with no selected data. Because the structural score of a node comes from graph topology alone and is independent of anyone's reported cost, the authors argue that this payment rule induces truthful per-node valuations, guarantees non-negative utility to every participant, and keeps the total payment at or below the budget. The same structural scores are then validated empirically: across five datasets, SIMT's purchased data yields higher per-node contribution to classification accuracy than data chosen by greedy or reconstruction-loss baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that SIMT is incentive-compatible assumes that when one data owner changes her reported price, the first fully unselected owner and the number of purchased items stay the same; this is true when each owner sells one node, but for owners holding several nodes a single report can move the cutoff and change the owner's total payment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Data owners in a model marketplace can be paid for their graph data without ever disclosing it, removing the main practical obstacle to pre-purchase inspection.
  • A buyer with a fixed budget can purchase only the most structurally informative and representative nodes and still train a competitive GNN, since each purchased node contributes more to accuracy than nodes chosen by cost alone.
  • The mechanism's guarantees are per-node: truthful reporting is an equilibrium, no participant is made worse off, and the total payment never exceeds the budget, so a consumer can set a budget in advance and be certain of the spend.
  • The structural-importance scoring is computable before any data is seen, using only the known edges between and within subgraphs, so the approach is applicable in privacy-conscious or federated settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editor's inference: the same structural-importance auction template could be applied to other relational data marketplaces—recommender systems, supply-chain graphs, or protein interaction networks—wherever structure is observable before content is paid for.
  • Editor's inference: the paper's proof treats the threshold owner and cutoff k as fixed when one owner changes her report; this is guaranteed when every owner holds one node but is open to question when a single owner holds many nodes, so extending IC to multi-node owners would require a separate argument or a modified payment rule.
  • Editor's inference: a natural testable extension is an adaptive version that re-clusters and re-scores after each round of purchases, which the paper lists as future work and which could buy more informative data at the same budget.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SIMT, a two-phase mechanism for trading graph-structured data in a model marketplace without pre-purchased inspection. In the procurement phase, a structural importance score is computed from clustering, marginal structural entropy, and PageRank, and an auction selects nodes by descending importance-to-reported-valuation ratio within each cluster. Payments are capped by a budget-share term and a threshold term based on the first owner with no selected node. The paper claims that SIMT is incentive compatible, individually rational, and budget feasible (Theorem 4.2), and it reports experiments on five datasets showing accuracy gains over baselines. The central theoretical claim is the focus of this review.

Significance. If Theorem 4.2 were correct, the paper would address a genuine and timely gap: pricing graph-structured data for GNN training without requiring data owners to disclose data before payment. The empirical study is fairly extensive, covering multiple datasets, budgets, ablations, and GNN architectures, and the proposed structural-importance scoring is a reasonable heuristic. However, the mechanism's stated guarantee of incentive compatibility is the load-bearing theoretical contribution, and that guarantee is false. The paper's advertised contribution as a mechanism with IC/IR/BF therefore does not stand, even though the empirical pipeline may still have heuristic value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.3, Theorem 4.2] The IC proof is invalid because the statement 'the payment of i for v is independent from i's report' in case (1) is false when owner i controls multiple nodes. A single reported theta_i enters every ratio phi_v/theta_i for all nodes owned by i, so i's report changes the cutoff k, the identity of the first fully unselected owner j, and all payments to i simultaneously. The proof treats k and j as fixed, which is only legitimate when each owner supplies at most one node.
  2. [Section 4.2/4.3, Theorem 4.2]
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Algorithm 1 line 8] The expression 'theta_k <= phi_k / sum_{u<=k} phi_u * beta/T' should be parenthesized as (phi_k / sum_{u<=k} phi_u) * (beta/T); as written the precedence is ambiguous.
  2. [Section 4.2, payment definition] The definition of j as 'the first data owner who has not had any data selected' requires a tie-breaking rule for equal ratios and a precise rule for owners with multiple nodes whose nodes are interleaved in the sorted order; the current text does not fully specify this.
  3. [Definition 4.1 and Appendix A] The term for the number of incident nodes inside the cluster is denoted n_{v,t} in Definition 4.1 but x_{v,t} in the appendix calculation; the notation should be unified.
  4. [Section 4.3, IR proof] In the individual-rationality proof, the assertion that the selected-node utility min{...} - theta_i is nonnegative is stated without derivation; a short argument using the sorting and the cutoff condition would make the proof self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Theorem 4.2 proof gap is a soundness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical and theoretical, and neither reduces to its own inputs. The structural importance score (Eq. 1) is computed from graph topology via clustering, marginal structural entropy, and PageRank, without using the target features or labels; the experimental comparisons in Table 1 use standard datasets with a 15% test set untouched during data procurement, so the reported performance gains are not fitted to the evaluation data. The proof of Theorem 4.2 derives IC, IR, and BF from the mechanism's own definitions rather than importing a conclusion from prior work. The self-citations [25], [43], and [49] are background references for structural entropy, unsupervised GNN-based clustering, and earlier auction work; none is used as a uniqueness theorem or as an ansatz that defines the target result, so they are not load-bearing. The proof of Theorem 4.2 does contain a genuine correctness gap: the sentence 'the payment of i for v is independent from i's report' is false when one owner controls multiple nodes, because changing that owner's report can change the cutoff k and the threshold owner. That is a soundness flaw, not a circularity, because the proof does not assume the conclusion it is trying to establish, and the empirical claims are independently benchmarked against held-out test sets. Accordingly, there is no significant circularity; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or theoretical entities are postulated. The marginal structural entropy is a derived score, not an entity. The main unobserved assumptions are homophily, cluster quality, and linear equal per-node valuations.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_balance = unclear formula: stated as 0.5*(1 + beta/(n*theta)) - T
    Balances representativeness and informativeness in the structural importance score phi_v; chosen by hand from budget, average valuation, and cluster count, not learned from data.
  • PageRank damping factor gamma = not stated
    Controls PageRank computation and affects the representativeness ranking phi_rep; a standard but untested hyperparameter in this setting.
  • contrastive temperature tau = not stated
    Used in the contrastive loss for edge augmentation; its value is not specified in the main text and can affect training outcomes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Graph homophily holds: nodes with similar labels and features are more likely to be connected.
    Section 4.1 motivates structural importance using the homophily assumption; if false, structural scores may not track data value for training.
  • domain assumption Structural clusters approximate true classes.
    Section 4.1 states 'we first use structural clusters to approximate the true classes'; the entire informativeness measure depends on this approximation.
  • domain assumption Each data owner values all her nodes equally, giving linear total valuation.
    Section 3.1 assumes theta_i = theta_i * vector of ones; this restriction is used in the mechanism and in the proof, and it enables the counterexample.
  • domain assumption Cross-subgraph edges are known to the model consumer.
    Section 3.1 assumes the connections between subgraphs are public; without this, structural clustering and PageRank cannot be computed.
  • domain assumption The VGAE-based clustering produces a partition close enough to the true classes.
    Section 4.1 and Appendix H admit the clustering is not always robust; if clusters are poor, the structural importance scores are unreliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Pricing for Graph Neural Networks without Pre-purchased Inspection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4O6SLHCL

@misc{pith2026250208284,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Pricing for Graph Neural Networks without Pre-purchased Inspection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4O6SLHCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08284}
}
abstract

Machine learning (ML) models have become essential tools in various scenarios. Their effectiveness, however, hinges on a substantial volume of data for satisfactory performance. Model marketplaces have thus emerged as crucial platforms bridging model consumers seeking ML solutions and data owners possessing valuable data. These marketplaces leverage model trading mechanisms to properly incentive data owners to contribute their data, and return a well performing ML model to the model consumers. However, existing model trading mechanisms often assume the data owners are willing to share their data before being paid, which is not reasonable in real world. Given that, we propose a novel mechanism, named Structural Importance based Model Trading (SIMT) mechanism, that assesses the data importance and compensates data owners accordingly without disclosing the data. Specifically, SIMT procures feature and label data from data owners according to their structural importance, and then trains a graph neural network for model consumers. Theoretically, SIMT ensures incentive compatible, individual rational and budget feasible. The experiments on five popular datasets validate that SIMT consistently outperforms vanilla baselines by up to $40\%$ in both MacroF1 and MicroF1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08284 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of structural importance-based model trading (SIMT) mechanism. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The strong correlation between graph structure and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jacob Abernethy, Yiling Chen, Chien-Ju Ho, and Bo Waggoner. 2015. Low- cost learning via active data procurement. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . 619–636

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Anish Agarwal, Munther Dahleh, and Tuhin Sarkar. 2019. A marketplace for data: An algorithmic solution. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 701–726

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Dimitrios Bechtsis, Naoum Tsolakis, Eleftherios Iakovou, and Dimitrios Vlachos

    work page

  4. [4]

    Béla Bollobás. 1998. Random graphs. Springer

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Steven L Brunton and J Nathan Kutz. 2022. Data-driven science and engineering: Machine learning, dynamical systems, and control . Cambridge University Press

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    John Burkardt. 2014. The truncated normal distribution. Department of Scientific Computing Website, Florida State University 1 (2014), 35

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Hongyun Cai, Vincent W Zheng, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2017. Active learning for graph embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.05085 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Akshay L Chandra, Sai Vikas Desai, Chaitanya Devaguptapu, and Vineeth N Balasubramanian. 2021. On initial pools for deep active learning. In NeurIPS 2020 Workshop on Pre-registration in Machine Learning . PMLR, 14–32

    work page 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Mingshu Cong, Han Yu, Xi Weng, Jiabao Qu, Yang Liu, and Siu Ming Yiu. 2020. A VCG-based Fair Incentive Mechanism for Federated Learning. (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Pranav Dandekar, Nadia Fawaz, and Stratis Ioannidis. 2012. Privacy auctions for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Internet and Network Economics . Springer-Verlag, 309–322

    2012

  3. [11]

    Amirata Ghorbani and James Zou. 2019. Data shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learning. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2242–2251

    2019

  4. [12]

    Arpita Ghosh and Aaron Roth. 2011. Selling privacy at auction. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce . 199–208

    2011

  5. [13]

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Judd Randolph Heckman, Erin Laurel Boehmer, Elizabeth Hope Peters, Milad Davaloo, and Nikhil Gopinath Kurup. 2015. A pricing model for data markets. IConference 2015 Proceedings (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Rui Hu and Yanmin Gong. 2020. Trading data for learning: Incentive mecha- nism for on-device federated learning. In GLOBECOM 2020-2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference. IEEE, 1–6

    2020

  8. [16]

    Jeevan Jaisingh, Jack Barron, Shailendra Mehta, and Alok Chaturvedi. 2008. Privacy and pricing personal information. European Journal of Operational Research 187, 3 (2008), 857–870

    2008

  9. [17]

    Spanos, and Dawn Song

    Ruoxi Jia, David Dao, Boxin Wang, Frances Ann Hubis, Nezihe Merve Gurel, Bo Li, Ce Zhang, Costas J. Spanos, and Dawn Song. 2019. Efficient Task-Specific Data Valuation for Nearest Neighbor Algorithms. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Variational graph auto-encoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Avanish Kushal, Sharmadha Moorthy, and Vikash Kumar. 2012. Pricing for data markets. online] https://courses. cs. washington. edu/courses/cse544/11wi/projects/kumar_kushal_moorthy. pdf (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Vito Latora, Vincenzo Nicosia, and Giovanni Russo. 2017. Complex networks: principles, methods and applications . Cambridge University Press

    2017

  14. [22]

    Angsheng Li and Yicheng Pan. 2016. Structural information and dynamical complexity of networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 62, 6 (2016), 3290–3339

    2016

  15. [23]

    Katrina Ligett and Aaron Roth. 2012. Take it or leave it: Running a survey when privacy comes at a cost. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics. Springer, 378–391

    2012

  16. [24]

    Jinfei Liu. 2020. Dealer: end-to-end data marketplace with model-based pricing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.13103 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Yiwei Liu, Jiamou Liu, Zijian Zhang, Liehuang Zhu, and Angsheng Li. 2019. REM: From structural entropy to community structure deception. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Nan Ma, Jiancheng Guan, and Yi Zhao. 2008. Bringing PageRank to the citation analysis. Information Processing & Management 44, 2 (2008), 800–810

    2008

  19. [27]

    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

    2001

  20. [28]

    Olga Ohrimenko, Shruti Tople, and Sebastian Tschiatschek. 2019. Collaborative machine learning markets with data-replication-robust payments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.09052 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Javier Parra-Arnau. 2018. Optimized, direct sale of privacy in personal data marketplaces. Information Sciences 424 (2018), 354–384

    2018

  23. [31]

    Pengzhen Ren, Yun Xiao, Xiaojun Chang, Po-Yao Huang, Zhihui Li, Brij B Gupta, Xiaojiang Chen, and Xin Wang. 2021. A survey of deep active learning. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 9 (2021), 1–40

    2021

  24. [32]

    Emanuele Rossi, Henry Kenlay, Maria I Gorinova, Benjamin Paul Chamberlain, Xiaowen Dong, and Michael M Bronstein. 2022. On the unreasonable effectiveness of feature propagation in learning on graphs with missing node features. In Learning on Graphs Conference . PMLR, 11–1

    2022

  25. [33]

    Aaron Roth and Grant Schoenebeck. 2012. Conducting truthful surveys, cheaply. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . 826–843

    2012

  26. [34]

    Lloyd S Shapley. 1951. Notes on the n-person game—ii: The value of an n-person game. (1951)

    1951

  27. [35]

    Oleksandr Shchur, Maximilian Mumme, Aleksandar Bojchevski, and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Pitfalls of graph neural network evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05868 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Rachael Hwee Ling Sim, Yehong Zhang, Mun Choon Chan, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. 2020. Collaborative machine learning with incentive-aware model rewards. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 8927– 8936

    2020

  29. [37]

    Yaron Singer. 2010. Budget feasible mechanisms. In 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Sym- posium on foundations of computer science . IEEE, 765–774

    2010

  30. [38]

    Indro Spinelli, Simone Scardapane, and Aurelio Uncini. 2020. Missing data imputation with adversarially-trained graph convolutional networks. Neural Networks 129 (2020), 249–260

    2020

  31. [39]

    Peng Sun, Xu Chen, Guocheng Liao, and Jianwei Huang. 2022. A profit- maximizing model marketplace with differentially private federated learning. In IEEE INFOCOM 2022-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications . IEEE, 1439–1448

    2022

  32. [40]

    Hibiki Taguchi, Xin Liu, and Tsuyoshi Murata. 2021. Graph convolutional net- works for graphs containing missing features. Future Generation Computer Systems 117 (2021), 155–168

    2021

  33. [41]

    Bisheng Tang, Xiaojun Chen, Shaopu Wang, Yuexin Xuan, and Zhendong Zhao

  34. [42]

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Yifei Wang, Yupan Wang, Zeyu Zhang, Song Yang, Kaiqi Zhao, and Jiamou Liu

  36. [44]

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. 2018. How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Lei Xu, Chunxiao Jiang, Yan Chen, Yong Ren, and K. J. Ray Liu. 2015. Privacy or Utility in Data Collection? A Contract Theoretic Approach. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 9, 7 (2015), 1256–1269

    2015

  38. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05889 (2023)

    User: Unsupervised structural entropy-based robust graph neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05889 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Chen Zhang, Yu Xie, Hang Bai, Bin Yu, Weihong Li, and Yuan Gao. 2021. A survey on federated learning. Knowledge-Based Systems 216 (2021), 106775

    2021

  40. [48]

    Jingwen Zhang, Yuezhou Wu, and Rong Pan. 2021. Incentive mechanism for hori- zontal federated learning based on reputation and reverse auction. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 947–956

    2021

  41. [49]

    Xinyi Xu, Lingjuan Lyu, Xingjun Ma, Chenglin Miao, Chuan Sheng Foo, and Bryan Kian Hsiang Low. 2021. Gradient driven rewards to guarantee fairness in collaborative machine learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 16104–16117

    2021

  42. [50]

    Wentao Zhang, Yu Shen, Yang Li, Lei Chen, Zhi Yang, and Bin Cui. 2021. Alg: Fast and accurate active learning framework for graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data . 2366– 2374. Table 4: The impact of different st...

    2021

  43. [52]

    Mengxiao Zhang, Fernando Beltran, and Jiamou Liu. 2020. Selling Data at an Auction under Privacy Constraints. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR, 669–678

    2020

  44. [54]

    The configuration of these architectures are the same as that of GCN as shown in GNN models part in Sec

    and have gained widespread acceptance within the GNN com- munity. The configuration of these architectures are the same as that of GCN as shown in GNN models part in Sec. 5.1. To eliminate the randomness induced by subgraphs, we conduct experiments on the case where all data o...

  45. [2022]

    International Journal of Production Research 60, 14 (2022), 4397–4417

    Data-driven secure, resilient and sustainable supply chains: gaps, oppor- tunities, and a new generalised data sharing and data monetisation framework. International Journal of Production Research 60, 14 (2022), 4397–4417

    2022

  46. [2023]

    Neural Networks (2023)

    Generalized heterophily graph data augmentation for node classification. Neural Networks (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2023.09.021

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.