Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 127 references

Graph Representation Learning: A Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey of graph representation learning claims to provide the first systematic head-to-head evaluation of embedding methods, with random-walk techniques leading the results.

desk verdict A survey whose useful taxonomy is undercut by a central benchmark claim that is not reproducible as written, plus sloppy citations; worth refereeing only if the authors can ship the promised GRLL code and fix the experimental reporting. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00958 v1 pith:AXVDPMJ7 submitted 2019-09-03 cs.LG cs.SIstat.ML

Fenxiao Chen , Yuncheng Wang , Bin Wang , C.-C. Jay Kuo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.SIstat.ML
keywords graphrepresentationlearningembeddingneuralnetworksrandomwalksmatrixfactorizationnodeclassificationclusterqualitysurvey
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

Graphs are hard to analyze because their structure is irregular, so graph representation learning compresses nodes into low-dimensional vectors for machine learning. This survey organizes the field into classical and emerging families and argues that its own contribution is a systematic comparison: it evaluates seven embedding methods on citation graphs, social networks, and a word-co-occurrence network under a unified protocol, and it releases an open-source Python library, GRLL, that it says covers more embedding techniques than any existing library. On the paper's own evidence, random-walk methods such as DeepWalk and node2vec are the strongest all-around choice, combining high classification and clustering scores with low memory and training time. The paper would matter because it offers newcomers a way to choose among methods that had previously been evaluated under incompatible settings.

What carries the argument

The paper's argument is carried by a taxonomy of graph embedding ideas and a standardized evaluation protocol. The central objects are the first-order and second-order proximity objectives that define when an embedding preserves graph structure, and the method families built on them: dimensionality reduction, random walks, matrix factorization, neural networks, hypergraphs, and attention mechanisms. The evaluation machinery is the unified GRLL interface, which runs each method with its default hyperparameters, feeds the embeddings to a linear-regression classifier for classification, and uses K-means++ for clustering, reporting the best of ten runs.

What would settle it

Run the same seven methods on the same datasets through a reimplementation of the stated protocol (default hyperparameters, 50/50 train-test split, linear-regression classifier, best of ten K-means++ runs) and check whether the rank ordering in Tables 3 and 4 and the timing ratios in Table 5 are reproduced; if the ordering flips under seed variation, the claim of a systematic evaluation collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim has two parts. First, it claims to be the first survey to provide systematic evaluation of a rich set of graph embedding methods in domain-specific applications, comparing vertex classification accuracy on Cora and Wiki and clustering quality on YouTube, Flickr, and BlogCatalog under one common protocol. Second, it releases GRLL, an open-source library that it says covers the largest number of graph embedding techniques up to now. The evaluation itself finds that random-walk-based methods are the top performers on classification on both small datasets, that DeepWalk and node2vec lead clustering quality on the large datasets, and that random-walk embeddings degrade much more slowly than structural-preserving methods when the embedding dimension shrinks from 128 to 4.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported accuracy, F1, and timing numbers were produced by the claimed implementations under the stated default settings, since the paper gives no code, data splits, seeds, or hyperparameter values that would let a reader reproduce the tables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Random-walk-with-skip-gram methods are a strong default baseline for unsupervised graph embedding, outperforming matrix-factorization and other alternatives in the tested settings.
  • For very large graphs, DeepWalk is the practical choice because it combines top accuracy with training time far below node2vec and LINE on YouTube and Flickr.
  • Embedding dimension matters less for random-walk methods; users can shrink vectors to 4 or 8 dimensions with only about 20 percent accuracy loss, while LINE, GraRep, and GF lose as much as 45 percent.
  • GraRep's classification quality is competitive, but its memory demands keep it off the largest graphs, so memory rather than accuracy becomes the deciding factor in those cases.
  • The GRLL library, if used as presented, gives a single interface for running a broad set of embedding methods and comparing them on downstream tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper reports only the best of ten K-means++ runs, the published F1 scores may overstate typical clustering performance; reporting mean and standard deviation would be a more conservative benchmark.
  • The main comparison excludes neural-network methods such as GCN, GraphSAGE, and GAT, so the 'random walks win' conclusion is about the unsupervised, transductive setting; extending the same protocol to those models is a direct, testable next step.
  • If the GRLL code and exact hyperparameter values were released, the survey's 'first systematic evaluation' claim would turn from an assertion into a reusable community benchmark.
  • The dimension-robustness of random-walk embeddings suggests a practical rule of thumb: for memory-constrained deployments, start with low-dimensional DeepWalk or node2vec rather than structure-preserving embeddings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a survey of graph representation learning (graph embedding) methods. It organizes methods into classical (dimensionality reduction, random walk, matrix factorization) and emerging (neural-network-based, large-graph, hypergraph, attention, and others) categories, discusses applications and future research directions, and reports an experimental comparison of seven embedding methods on small and large datasets for vertex classification and clustering. The paper claims three contributions: a broad survey with insights, the first systematic evaluation of graph embedding methods in domain-specific applications, and an open-source Python library, GRLL, unifying the largest number of graph embedding techniques. The evaluation uses public datasets (Cora, Wiki, YouTube, Flickr, BlogCatalog) and reports classification accuracy and Macro/Micro-F1 clustering scores, together with training-time measurements.

Significance. If the evaluation and library claims were fully substantiated, the paper would be a useful reference and benchmark resource for practitioners, because the survey covers a wide range of methods including recent neural and attention-based approaches, and a unified library would lower the barrier to comparing methods. The survey's taxonomy alone is not particularly novel, as acknowledged by the authors' citations to prior surveys [11], [44], but the systematic evaluation and the GRLL library would be a genuine additional contribution. The paper does not rely on machine-checked proofs; its contribution is empirical, so the value depends almost entirely on the reproducibility, correctness, and careful reporting of the experiments in Section V. As the paper stands, that part is not verifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Introduction, third bullet; Section V.C.1] The paper's central claim to provide 'the first survey paper that provides systematic evaluation of a rich set of graph embedding methods' and a library 'cover[ing] the largest number of graph embedding techniques up to now' is not verifiable from the manuscript. Section V.C.1 states that methods were run with 'the default hyper-parameter setting provided by each graph embedding method' and a 50/50 split, but no repository URL, no hyperparameter values, no train/test split seed, and no implementation details are given. The phrase 'in the Github' in Section V.C contains no repository identifier. As a result, the experimental numbers in Tables 3-5 cannot be regenerated or checked, and the claimed library cannot be inspected. This is a load-bearing issue because the evaluation and library are stated as the paper's second and third contributions.
  2. [V.C.2, Table 4] The clustering evaluation reports the 'best result' of 10 K-means++ runs (Section V.C.2) without any measure of variance, such as standard deviation or the full distribution across seeds. Reporting the best of several random initializations systematically favors methods with higher run-to-run variance, so the observed differences do not support the conclusions drawn in the surrounding text. For example, the YouTube Macro-F1 gap between DeepWalk (0.206) and node2vec (0.221) is only 0.015, which is plausibly within K-means++ seed noise. Without error bars or significance tests, the comparative statements about method superiority in Section V.C.2 are unsupported.
  3. [References [10] and [75]] Two references are seriously miscited. Reference [10], cited for the Cora dataset, is the Cabanes et al. paper on ocean temperature and salinity measurements, not the Cora citation network. Reference [75], cited for Multidimensional Scaling, is Robinson and Bennett's study of deviant workplace behaviors, not an MDS reference. In a survey paper, incorrect pointers to the primary data and method descriptions prevent readers from locating the actual sources and undermine confidence in the factual reliability of the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is malformed: the denominator of p2(vj|vi) is missing the summation braces, and the notation mixes a conditional with an equality. Please rewrite the equation carefully.
  2. [Eq. (7)] Equation (7) reads 'Y = argmax min|W - YY^T|', which is not a well-defined optimization problem (argmax of a min). The intended objective function should be stated explicitly.
  3. [II.A, Eq. (1)] There are several typos, e.g., 'the distance characteristics among nodes is preserved' should be 'are preserved', and 'where an edge ei,j connects vertex vi to vertex vj' uses inconsistent punctuation. A thorough proofread of the notation and prose is needed.
  4. [V.C.5, Fig. 6] The caption and text refer to 'training sample ratio' and a linear regression classifier, but the figure is not included in the manuscript text; ensure all figures are actually embedded and legible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found: the survey's taxonomy and external benchmark evaluation are self-contained, and the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a survey and empirical comparison, not a derivation chain, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. The taxonomic content reviews externally published methods (DeepWalk, node2vec, GraRep, GCN, LINE, etc.) and evaluates them on public datasets (Cora, Wiki, BlogCatalog, YouTube, Flickr) using each method's stated default hyperparameters. The comparison tables and figures are therefore grounded in external methods and datasets rather than in any result derived from this paper. The paper's self-citations appear only in peripheral contexts: ref. [16] supports a qualitative caveat that attention does not always improve embedding accuracy; ref. [17] is cited for a property of a regularization term in a reviewed method; ref. [58] is mentioned in the future-directions discussion of interpretable CNNs. None of these citations is used as the premise for the paper's central claims, such as the novelty of the survey, the coverage of the GRLL library, or any reported performance ranking. The reproducibility concerns raised about the evaluation (no code URL, no seeds or hyperparameter values, best-of-10 K-means++ reporting) are validity and verifiability issues, not circularity: they do not show that any reported number is defined in terms of the paper's own inputs or that a prediction reduces to a fit. Overall, no load-bearing step is circular, and the minor self-citations do not raise the circularity score beyond a token acknowledgment.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new equations, entities, or fitted parameters of its own. The benchmark comparison relies on external methods with unstated default hyperparameters, and the literature grounding assumes that the cited references are correct, which is violated by several mis-citations.

free parameters (1)
  • Default hyperparameters of each baseline embedding method = unspecified
    Section V.C.1 says 'We used the default hyper-parameter setting provided by each graph embedding method', but the values are never listed, so the benchmark outcome depends on unstated parameter choices. These are effectively free parameters for reproducing the results.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The selected datasets (Cora, Wiki, BlogCatalog, YouTube, Flickr) are representative benchmarks for graph embedding evaluation.
    Section V.B introduces these datasets without justification for representativeness; the paper's comparative conclusions depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption K-means++ with the best result over 10 runs is an adequate evaluation protocol for clustering quality.
    Section V.C.2 reports 'the best result' rather than the mean, which systematically inflates scores and makes comparisons non-standard.
  • domain assumption The cited references accurately correspond to the described methods and datasets.
    Multiple references are mis-cited (e.g., [10] for Cora points to an ocean dataset, [75] for MDS points to a workplace deviance paper), so the literature grounding is unreliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph Representation Learning: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AXVDPMJ7

@misc{pith2026190900958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph Representation Learning: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AXVDPMJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00958}
}
read the original abstract

Research on graph representation learning has received a lot of attention in recent years since many data in real-world applications come in form of graphs. High-dimensional graph data are often in irregular form, which makes them more difficult to analyze than image/video/audio data defined on regular lattices. Various graph embedding techniques have been developed to convert the raw graph data into a low-dimensional vector representation while preserving the intrinsic graph properties. In this review, we first explain the graph embedding task and its challenges. Next, we review a wide range of graph embedding techniques with insights. Then, we evaluate several state-of-the-art methods against small and large datasets and compare their performance. Finally, potential applications and future directions are presented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a learnable graph convolutional layer (LGCL) method [35] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the sub-graph selection process [35]. • Learnable graph convolutional layer (LGCL) [35] For each feature dimension, every node in the LGCL method selects a fixed number of features from its neigh￾boring nodes with value ranking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of graph and hypergraph structures [31]. Since hypergraphs provide a good tool for social net￾work modeling, and hypergraph embedding is a hot research topic nowadays. On one hand, hypergraph model￾ing has a lot of applications that are difficult to achieve by graph modeling such as multi-modal data representation. On the other hand, hypergraphs can be viewed as a vari￾ant of simple graphs and many grap… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The node classification accuracy as a function of the training sample ratio for the Cora dataset. 5) Influence of Training Sample Ratio By the training sample ratio, we mean the percentages of total graph samples that are used for the training purpose. When the ratio i…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The node classification accuracy as a function of the embedding dimension for the Wiki dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Abu-El-Haija, S., Perozzi, B., Al-Rfou, R., and Alemi, A. (2017). Watch your step: Learning graph embeddings through attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09599

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [75]

    Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., and Dean, J. (2013a). Effi- cient estimation of word representations in vector space.arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781

    arXiv 2013

  3. [11]

    Abu-El-Haija, S., Perozzi, B., Al-Rfou, R., and Alemi, A. A. (2018). Watch your step: Learning node embeddings via graph attention. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 9180– 9190

    2018

  4. [44]

    and Ferrara, E

    Goyal, P. and Ferrara, E. (2018). Graph embedding techniques, applications, and performance: A survey. Knowledge-Based Systems, 151:78–94

    work page 2018

  5. [1]

    We used the default hyper-parameter setting provided by each graph embed- ding method

    Vertex Classification We compare vertex classification accuracy of seven graph embedding methods on Cora and Wiki. We used the default hyper-parameter setting provided by each graph embed- ding method. For the classifier, we adopted linear regres- sion for all methods. We split samples equally into the training and the testing sets (i.e. 50% and 50%). The ve...

  6. [2]

    • GraRep [13] GraRep aims to preserve the high order proximity of graphs in the embedding space

    (10) This term will make connected nodes close to each other in the learned network representation [17]. • GraRep [13] GraRep aims to preserve the high order proximity of graphs in the embedding space. While the random-walk based methods have a similar objective, their probability model and objective functions used are difficult to explain how the high ord...

    2010

  7. [3]

    The time complexity of three embedding methods against three datasets is com- pared in Table 5

    Time Complexity Time complexity is an important factor to consider, which is especially true for large graphs. The time complexity of three embedding methods against three datasets is com- pared in Table 5. We see that the training time of DeepWalk is significantly lower than node2vec and LINE for larger graph datasets such as YouTube and Flickr. DeepWalk ...

  8. [4]

    The K-means++ algorithm is adopted for the clustering task

    Clustering Quality We compare various graph embedding methods by exam- ining their clustering quality in terms of the Macro- and Micro-F1 scores. The K-means++ algorithm is adopted for the clustering task. Since the results of K-means++ clus- tering are dependent upon seed initialization, we perform 10 consecutive runs and report the best result. We teste...

Show all 127 references
  1. [5]

    When the ratio is high, the classifier could be overfit

    Influence of Training Sample Ratio By the training sample ratio, we mean the percentages of total graph samples that are used for the training purpose. When the ratio is high, the classifier could be overfit. On the other hand, if the ratio is too low, the offered information may...

  2. [6]

    However, some drops faster than others

    Influence of Embedding Dimensions As the embedding dimension decreases, less information of the input graph is preserved so that the performance drops. However, some drops faster than others. We show the node classification accuracy as a function of the embedding 12 FENXIAO CHEN...

  3. [7]

    Random-walk based methods obtain embedding vectors by selecting paths from the input graph randomly

    One explanation is that the structural preserving methods optimize the representation vectors in the embedding space so that a small information loss will result in substantial dif- ference. Random-walk based methods obtain embedding vectors by selecting paths from the input g...

  4. [8]

    Bizer, C., Lehmann, J., Kobilarov, G., Auer, S., Becker, C., Cyganiak, R., and Hellmann, S. (2009). Dbpedia-a crystallization point for the web of data. Web Semantics: science, services and agents on the world wide web, 7(3):154–165

    2009

  5. [9]

    Bollacker, K., Evans, C., Paritosh, P., Sturge, T., and Taylor, J. (2008). Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for struc- turing human knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data , pages 1247–1250. AcM

    2008

  6. [12]

    Ahmed, A., Shervashidze, N., Narayanamurthy, S., Josifovski, V ., and Smola, A. J. (2013). Distributed large-scale natural graph factorization. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, pages 37–48. ACM

    2013

  7. [13]

    and Gutierrez, C

    Angles, R. and Gutierrez, C. (2008). Survey of graph database models. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 40(1):1

    2008

  8. [14]

    Anis, A., Gadde, A., and Ortega, A. (2016). Efficient sampling set selection for bandlimited graph signals using graph spectral proxies. IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, 64(14):3775–3789

    2016

  9. [15]

    and Niyogi, P

    Belkin, M. and Niyogi, P. (2003). Laplacian eigenmaps for dimen- sionality reduction and data representation. Neural computation , 15(6):1373–1396

    2003

  10. [16]

    Bhagat, S., Cormode, G., and Muthukrishnan, S. (2011). Node clas- sification in social networks. In Social network data analytics , pages 115–148. Springer

    2011

  11. [17]

    Chen, F., Wang, B., and Kuo, C.-C. J. (2019). Deepwalk-assisted graph pca (dgpca) for language networks. In ICASSP 2019-2019 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 2957–2961. IEEE

    2019

  12. [18]

    and Payne, T

    Chrobak, M. and Payne, T. H. (1995). A linear-time algorithm for drawing a planar graph on a grid. Information Processing Letters , 54(4):241–246

    1995

  13. [19]

    v., Hamon, M., Turpin, V ., Coatanoan, C., Paris, F., Guinehut, S., Boone, C., and Ferry, N

    Cabanes, C., Grouazel, A., Schuckmann, K. v., Hamon, M., Turpin, V ., Coatanoan, C., Paris, F., Guinehut, S., Boone, C., and Ferry, N. (2013). The cora dataset: validation and diagnostics of in-situ ocean temperature and salinity measurements. Ocean Science, 9(1):1–18

    2013

  14. [20]

    W., and Chang, K

    Cai, H., Zheng, V . W., and Chang, K. C.-C. (2018). A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: Problems, techniques, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 30(9):1616– 1637

    2018

  15. [21]

    and Weis, S

    Canese, K. and Weis, S. (2013). Pubmed: the bibliographic database. In The NCBI Handbook [Internet]. 2nd edition . National Center for Biotechnology Information (US)

    2013

  16. [22]

    Cao, S., Lu, W., and Xu, Q. (2015). Grarep: Learning graph rep- resentations with global structural information. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management, pages 891–900. ACM

    2015

  17. [23]

    W., Cai, H., Chang, K

    Cavallari, S., Zheng, V . W., Cai, H., Chang, K. C.-C., and Cambria, E. (2017). Learning community embedding with community detection and node embedding on graphs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages 377–

    2017

  18. [24]

    Chen, D. (2009). A novel clustering algorithm for graphs. In 2009 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, volume 4, pages 279–283. IEEE

    2009

  19. [25]

    Chen, F., Wang, B., and Kuo, C.-C. J. (2018). Graph-based deep-tree recursive neural network (dtrnn) for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01219

    2018 arXiv

  20. [26]

    H., He, X., Zha, H., Gu, M., and Simon, H

    Ding, C. H., He, X., Zha, H., Gu, M., and Simon, H. D. (2001). A min-max cut algorithm for graph partitioning and data clustering. In Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 107–114. IEEE

    2001

  21. [27]

    Dourisboure, Y ., Geraci, F., and Pellegrini, M. (2007). Extraction and classification of dense communities in the web. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 461–470. ACM

    2007

  22. [28]

    Cucerzan, S. (2007). Large-scale named entity disambiguation based on wikipedia data. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computa- tional Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 708–716

    2007

  23. [29]

    A., Larremore, D

    De Bacco, C., Power, E. A., Larremore, D. B., and Moore, C. (2017). Community detection, link prediction, and layer interdependence in multilayer networks. Physical Review E, 95(4):042317

    2017

  24. [30]

    de Fraysseix, H., Pach, J., and Pollack, R. (1988). Small sets support- ing fary embeddings of planar graphs. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing , pages 426–433. ACM

    1988

  25. [31]

    De Fraysseix, H., Pach, J., and Pollack, R. (1990). How to draw a planar graph on a grid. Combinatorica, 10(1):41–51

    1990

  26. [32]

    Defferrard, M., Bresson, X., and Vandergheynst, P. (2016). Con- volutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3844–3852

    2016

  27. [33]

    and Cottrell, G

    DeMers, D. and Cottrell, G. W. (1993). Non-linear dimensional- ity reduction. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 580–587

    1993

  28. [34]

    Derr, T., Ma, Y ., and Tang, J. (2018). Signed graph convolutional networks. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 929–934. IEEE

    2018

  29. [35]

    Gao, H., Wang, Z., and Ji, S. (2018). Large-scale learnable graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pages 1416–1424. ACM

    2018

  30. [36]

    Gao, S., Denoyer, L., and Gallinari, P. (2011). Temporal link predic- tion by integrating content and structure information. InProceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, pages 1169–1174. ACM

    2011

  31. [37]

    Fahlman, S. E. (1988). An empirical study of learning speed in back- propagation networks

    1988

  32. [38]

    Fáry, I. (1948). On straight-line representation of planar graphs.Acta Sci. Math., 11:229–233

    1948

  33. [39]

    and Motwani, R

    Feder, T. and Motwani, R. (1995). Clique partitions, graph com- pression and speeding-up algorithms. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 51(2):261–272

    1995

  34. [40]

    Feng, Y ., You, H., Zhang, Z., Ji, R., and Gao, Y . (2018). Hypergraph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09401. GRAPH REPRESENTATION LEARNING : A S URVEY 15

    2018 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Field, D. A. (1988). Laplacian smoothing and delaunay triangula- tions. Communications in applied numerical methods, 4(6):709–712

    1988

  36. [42]

    Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics reports, 486(3-5):75–174

    2010

  37. [43]

    Gao, H., Chen, Y ., and Ji, S. (2019). Learning graph pooling and hybrid convolutional operations for text representations.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06965

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Green, S. B. and Yang, Y . (2009). Reliability of summed item scores using structural equation modeling: An alternative to coefficient alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1):155–167

    2009

  39. [46]

    Gargi, U., Lu, W., Mirrokni, V ., and Yoon, S. (2011). Large-scale community detection on youtube for topic discovery and exploration. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media

    2011

  40. [47]

    Gilbert, A. C. and Levchenko, K. (2004). Compressing network graphs. In Proceedings of the LinkKDD workshop at the 10th ACM Conference on KDD, volume 124

    2004

  41. [48]

    L., Bollacker, K

    Giles, C. L., Bollacker, K. D., and Lawrence, S. (1998). Citeseer: An automatic citation indexing system. In ACM DL, pages 89–98

    1998

  42. [49]

    and Newman, M

    Girvan, M. and Newman, M. E. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 99(12):7821–7826

    2002

  43. [50]

    Goldberger, J., Gordon, S., and Greenspan, H. (2003). An efficient image similarity measure based on approximations of kl-divergence between two gaussian mixtures. In null, page 487. IEEE

    2003

  44. [51]

    Golub, G. H. and Reinsch, C. (1971). Singular value decomposi- tion and least squares solutions. In Linear Algebra, pages 134–151. Springer

    1971

  45. [52]

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y . (2014). Generative adver- sarial nets. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 2672–2680

    2014

  46. [53]

    Katz, L. (1953). A new status index derived from sociometric analysis. Psychometrika, 18(1):39–43

    1953

  47. [54]

    Kermarrec, A.-M., Leroy, V ., and Trédan, G. (2011). Distributed social graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM interna- tional conference on Information and knowledge management , pages 1209–1214. ACM

    2011

  48. [55]

    and Leskovec, J

    Grover, A. and Leskovec, J. (2016). node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD inter- national conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 855–864. ACM

    2016

  49. [56]

    Hamilton, W., Ying, Z., and Leskovec, J. (2017a). Inductive repre- sentation learning on large graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1024–1034

    2017

  50. [57]

    L., Ying, R., and Leskovec, J

    Hamilton, W. L., Ying, R., and Leskovec, J. (2017b). Represen- tation learning on graphs: Methods and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05584

    2017 arXiv

  51. [58]

    T., Sanderson, C., Shirazi, S., and Lovell, B

    Harandi, M. T., Sanderson, C., Shirazi, S., and Lovell, B. C. (2011). Graph embedding discriminant analysis on grassmannian manifolds for improved image set matching. InCVPR 2011, pages 2705–2712. IEEE

    2011

  52. [59]

    Hu, F., Zhu, Y ., Wu, S., Wang, L., and Tan, T. (2019). Semi- supervised node classification via hierarchical graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06667

    2019 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Jolliffe, I. (2011). Principal component analysis. Springer

    2011

  54. [61]

    and Kumar, V

    Karypis, G. and Kumar, V . (1998). Multilevelk-way partitioning scheme for irregular graphs. Journal of Parallel and Distributed com- puting, 48(1):96–129

    1998

  55. [62]

    Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., and Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: A new social network dataset using facebook. com. Social networks, 30(4):330–342

    2008

  56. [63]

    Li, Q., Han, Z., and Wu, X.-M. (2018). Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. InThirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2018

  57. [64]

    Kingma, D. P. and Welling, M. (2013). Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114

    2013 arXiv

  58. [65]

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

    2016 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. (2012). Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1097–1105

    2012

  60. [67]

    J., Zhang, M., Li, S., Duan, J., and Chen, Y

    Kuo, C.-C. J., Zhang, M., Li, S., Duan, J., and Chen, Y . (2018). Inter- pretable convolutional neural networks via feedforward design. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02786

    2018 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Le, T. M. and Lauw, H. W. (2014). Probabilistic latent document network embedding. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, pages 270–279. IEEE

    2014

  62. [69]

    We may consider another regularization term to replace the third term; namely, R(W,H ) = 1 4 |V|∑ i=1,j=1 Ai,j|| [wi Hti ] − [wj Htj ] ||2

    optimization technique can be used to update W andH. We may consider another regularization term to replace the third term; namely, R(W,H ) = 1 4 |V|∑ i=1,j=1 Ai,j|| [wi Hti ] − [wj Htj ] ||2

  63. [70]

    B., Rossi, R

    Lee, J. B., Rossi, R. A., Kim, S., Ahmed, N. K., and Koh, E. (2018). Attention models in graphs: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.07984

    2018 arXiv

  64. [71]

    and Faloutsos, C

    Leskovec, J. and Faloutsos, C. (2006). Sampling from large graphs. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 631–636. ACM

    2006

  65. [72]

    Ou, M., Cui, P., Pei, J., Zhang, Z., and Zhu, W. (2016). Asymmetric transitivity preserving graph embedding. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1105–1114. ACM

    2016

  66. [73]

    Liang, J., Gurukar, S., and Parthasarathy, S. (2018). Mile: A multi-level framework for scalable graph embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09612

    2018 arXiv

  67. [74]

    and Kleinberg, J

    Liben-Nowell, D. and Kleinberg, J. (2007). The link-prediction problem for social networks. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 58(7):1019–1031

    2007

  68. [76]

    Mikolov, T., Karafiát, M., Burget, L., ˇCernock`y, J., and Khudan- pur, S. (2010). Recurrent neural network based language model. In Eleventh annual conference of the international speech communication association

    2010

  69. [77]

    S., and Dean, J

    Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., and Dean, J. (2013b). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3111–3119

    2013

  70. [78]

    Møller, M. F. (1993). A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised learning. Neural networks, 6(4):525–533

    1993

  71. [79]

    A., Lee, S

    Motsinger, A. A., Lee, S. L., Mellick, G., and Ritchie, M. D. (2006). Gpnn: Power studies and applications of a neural network method for detecting gene-gene interactions in studies of human disease. BMC bioinformatics, 7(1):39

    2006

  72. [80]

    Newman, M. E. (2004). Detecting community structure in networks. The European Physical Journal B, 38(2):321–330. 16 FENXIAO CHEN , YUNCHENG WANG , BIN WANG AND C .-C. JAY KUO

    2004

  73. [81]

    Singh, A. P. and Gordon, G. J. (2008). Relational learning via col- lective matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 650–658. ACM

    2008

  74. [82]

    Perozzi, B., Al-Rfou, R., and Skiena, S. (2014). Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 701–710. ACM

    2014

  75. [83]

    and Towsley, D

    Ribeiro, B. and Towsley, D. (2010). Estimating and sampling graphs with multidimensional random walks. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, pages 390–403. ACM

    2010

  76. [84]

    Robinson, S. L. and Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of management journal, 38(2):555–572

    1995

  77. [85]

    Roweis, S. T. and Saul, L. K. (2000). Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding.science, 290(5500):2323–2326

    2000

  78. [86]

    D., and Rosin, P

    Samko, O., Marshall, A. D., and Rosin, P. L. (2006). Selection of the optimal parameter value for the isomap algorithm.Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(9):968–979

    2006

  79. [87]

    K., Weinberger, K

    Saul, L. K., Weinberger, K. Q., Ham, J. H., Sha, F., and Lee, D. D. (2006). Spectral methods for dimensionality reduction.Semisupervised learning, pages 293–308

    2006

  80. [88]

    and Jebara, T

    Shaw, B. and Jebara, T. (2009). Structure preserving embedding. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 937–944. ACM

    2009

  81. [89]

    and Van Zwol, R

    Sigurbjörnsson, B. and Van Zwol, R. (2008). Flickr tag recom- mendation based on collective knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 327–336. ACM

    2008

  82. [90]

    Umeyama, S. (1988). An eigendecomposition approach to weighted graph matching problems. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 10(5):695–703

    1988

  83. [91]

    Spitzer, F. (2013). Principles of random walk , volume 34. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  84. [92]

    Stein, S. K. (1951). Convex maps. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 2(3):464–466

    1951

  85. [93]

    and Liu, H

    Tang, J. and Liu, H. (2012). Unsupervised feature selection for linked social media data. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 904–912. ACM

    2012

  86. [94]

    Tang, J., Qu, M., Wang, M., Zhang, M., Yan, J., and Mei, Q. (2015). Line: Large-scale information network embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web , pages 1067–

    2015

  87. [95]

    Wattenhofer, M., Wattenhofer, R., and Zhu, Z. (2012). The youtube social network. In Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media

    2012

  88. [96]

    W., and Caley, R

    Taylor, P., Black, A. W., and Caley, R. (2001). Heterogeneous rela- tion graphs as a formalism for representing linguistic information. Speech Communication, 33(1-2):153–174

    2001

  89. [97]

    J., and Freeman, T

    Theocharidis, A., Van Dongen, S., Enright, A. J., and Freeman, T. C. (2009). Network visualization and analysis of gene expression data using biolayout express 3d. Nature protocols, 4(10):1535

    2009

  90. [98]

    Trochim, W. M. and Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research methods knowledge base, volume 2. Atomic Dog Publishing Cincinnati, OH

    2001

  91. [99]

    Tu, K., Cui, P., Wang, X., Wang, F., and Zhu, W. (2017). Structural deep embedding for hyper-networks. CoRR, abs/1711.10146

    2017 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Yan, S., Xu, D., Zhang, B., Zhang, H.-J., Yang, Q., and Lin, S. (2007). Graph embedding and extensions: A general framework for dimensionality reduction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, (1):40–51

    2007

  93. [101]

    Veli ˇckovi´c, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Lio, P., and Bengio, Y . (2017). Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903

    2017 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Wang, D., Cui, P., and Zhu, W. (2016). Structural deep network embedding. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 1225–

    2016

  95. [103]

    Wang, H., Wang, J., Wang, J., Zhao, M., Zhang, W., Zhang, F., Xie, X., and Guo, M. (2018). Graphgan: graph representation learning with generative adversarial nets. InThirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2018

  96. [104]

    Wang, X., Cui, P., Wang, J., Pei, J., Zhu, W., and Yang, S. (2017). Community preserving network embedding. InThirty-First AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence

    2017

  97. [105]

    Ye, J., Janardan, R., and Li, Q. (2005). Two-dimensional linear discriminant analysis. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1569–1576

    2005

  98. [106]

    Xu, K., Feng, Y ., Huang, S., and Zhao, D. (2015). Semantic relation classification via convolutional neural networks with simple negative sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.07650

    2015 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Xu, Q., Wang, Q., Xu, C., and Qu, L. (2017a). Attentive graph- based recursive neural network for collective vertex classification. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 2403–2406. ACM

    2017

  100. [108]

    Xu, Q., Wang, Q., Xu, C., and Qu, L. (2017b). Collective ver- tex classification using recursive neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06751

    2017 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Yan, S., Xu, D., Zhang, B., and Zhang, H.-J. (2005). Graph embed- ding: A general framework for dimensionality reduction. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), volume 2, pages 830–837. IEEE

    2005

  102. [110]

    Zhang, C., Zhang, K., Yuan, Q., Peng, H., Zheng, Y ., Hanratty, T., Wang, S., and Han, J. (2017). Regions, periods, activities: Uncover- ing urban dynamics via cross-modal representation learning. In Pro- ceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , pages ...

    2017

  103. [111]

    Yang, C., Liu, Z., Zhao, D., Sun, M., and Chang, E. (2015a). Network representation learning with rich text information. In Twenty- Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2015

  104. [112]

    Yang, T., Jin, R., Chi, Y ., and Zhu, S. (2009). Combining link and content for community detection: a discriminative approach. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 927–936. ACM

    2009

  105. [113]

    W., and Salakhutdinov, R

    Yang, Z., Cohen, W. W., and Salakhutdinov, R. (2016). Revisit- ing semi-supervised learning with graph embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08861

    2016 arXiv

  106. [114]

    • Recommendation System Recommendation is an important function in social networks and advertising platforms [48], [106], [112]

    can facilitate community detection [33], [102]. • Recommendation System Recommendation is an important function in social networks and advertising platforms [48], [106], [112]. Besides the structure, content and label data [54], some networks contain spatial and temporal infor...

  107. [115]

    Yang, Z., Tang, J., and Cohen, W. (2015b). Multi-modal bayesian embeddings for learning social knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.00715

    2015 arXiv

  108. [116]

    L., and Leskovec, J

    Ying, R., He, R., Chen, K., Eksombatchai, P., Hamilton, W. L., and Leskovec, J. (2018a). Graph convolutional neural networks for web- scale recommender systems. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pages 974–983. ACM

    2018

  109. [117]

    Ying, Z., You, J., Morris, C., Ren, X., Hamilton, W., and Leskovec, J. (2018b). Hierarchical graph representation learning with differen- tiable pooling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 4800–4810. GRAPH REPRESENTATION LEARNING : A S URVEY 17

    2018

  110. [118]

    Yuruk, N., Mete, M., Xu, X., and Schweiger, T. A. (2009). Ahscan: Agglomerative hierarchical structural clustering algorithm for networks. In 2009 International Conference on Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining, pages 72–77. IEEE

    2009

  111. [119]

    Zachary, W. W. (1977). An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups. Journal of anthropological research , 33(4):452–473

    1977

  112. [121]

    Zhang, D., Yin, J., Zhu, X., and Zhang, C. (2016a). Homophily, structure, and content augmented network representation learning. In Data Mining (ICDM), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on , pages 609–618. IEEE

    2016

  113. [122]

    J., Lian, D., Xie, X., and Ma, W.-Y

    Zhang, F., Yuan, N. J., Lian, D., Xie, X., and Ma, W.-Y . (2016b). Collaborative knowledge base embedding for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 353–362. ACM

    2016

  114. [123]

    and Wu, B

    Zhang, Y . and Wu, B. (2015). Finding community structure via rough k-means in social network. In 2015 IEEE International Con- ference on Big Data (Big Data), pages 2356–2361. IEEE

    2015

  115. [124]

    Zheleva, E., Getoor, L., Golbeck, J., and Kuter, U. (2008). Using friendship ties and family circles for link prediction. In International Workshop on Social Network Mining and Analysis , pages 97–113. Springer

    2008

  116. [125]

    Zhou, C., Liu, Y ., Liu, X., Liu, Z., and Gao, J. (2017). Scal- able graph embedding for asymmetric proximity. In Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2017

  117. [126]

    N., Weston, J., and Schölkopf, B

    Zhou, D., Bousquet, O., Lal, T. N., Weston, J., and Schölkopf, B. (2004). Learning with local and global consistency. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 321–328

    2004

  118. [127]

    Zhou, D., Huang, J., and Schölkopf, B. (2007). Learning with hypergraphs: Clustering, classification, and embedding. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 1601–1608

    2007

  119. [1077]

    International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.