AHINE: Adaptive Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding

Jieping Ye; Xiaoqing Yang; Yucheng Lin; Zang Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

AHINE: Adaptive Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that higher-order relations in heterogeneous networks can be encoded as composed per-edge-type neural transforms, removing the need for meta-path engineering.

desk verdict A clearly written HIN embedding paper with a genuinely new combination of per-relation deep transforms and path composition, but the empirical claims are plausible rather than established because the reported margins are thin and the experiments are single-run. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01087 v1 pith:FNRW3WCA submitted 2019-08-20 cs.SI cs.LG

Yucheng Lin , Xiaoqing Yang , Zang Li , Jieping Ye This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SIcs.LG

keywords heterogeneousinformationnetworkembeddingrelationchaincompositiondeepneuralunsupervisedrepresentationlearningmeta-path-freeride-hailingpoint-of-interestpredictionnodeclassificationsimilarityranking

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 sets out to learn vector representations for nodes in heterogeneous information networks—graphs with several kinds of nodes and edges—without requiring an expert to specify meta paths. Its central idea is to give every edge type its own neural-network transform and to treat the relationship between two non-adjacent nodes as the composition of those transforms along the chain connecting them. The resulting algorithm, AHINE, maximizes the probability that the composed transform of a source node predicts the true end node of a sampled relation chain. The authors argue that if this works, heterogeneous network embeddings become a generic, unsupervised tool applicable to ride-hailing, bibliographic, and other domains where relation semantics matter. They report that AHINE outperforms comparison methods on clustering, classification, and similarity-ranking tasks, and that its point-of-interest embeddings improve ride-hailing activity prediction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composed edge-type transform: each relation type $e$ gets a deep network $f_e$, and a chain of relations is represented by the composition $f_{e_m} \circ \cdots \circ f_{e_1}$ applied to the source embedding. AHINE trains embeddings and transforms by negative-sampling softmax over $(v_i, \text{chain}, v_j)$ samples, constructing a dynamic computation graph for every distinct chain type. This is what lets the model encode higher-order relations while keeping a distinct nonlinear map for each edge type.

What would settle it

Train AHINE on chains of length at most 2, then ask it to predict the end node of a held-out length-3 chain: if accuracy against ground-truth chains is no better than a random-walk baseline, the composition assumption is not doing the work. A sharper check is a synthetic HIN where the true end-node relation is a sum (or some other non-compositional function) of the two edge relations, in which case AHINE should fail to recover correct embeddings despite fitting the training chains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the semantic proximity of two nodes in a heterogeneous network can be learned by modeling each edge type as a distinct deep neural layer and composing these layers along relation chains. For a chain $v_i \xrightarrow{e_1} \cdots \xrightarrow{e_m} v_j$, the model asserts $f_{e_m}(\cdots f_{e_1}(\Phi(v_i))\cdots) \approx \Phi(v_j)$, and training maximizes the softmax likelihood of $v_j$ given $v_i$ and the chain. GHINE is the length-1 restriction, while AHINE generalizes to arbitrary chain lengths using a dynamic computation graph, with GHINE serving as pretraining. The authors claim this captures higher-order semantic relations without explicit meta paths, and that on DBIS, AMINER, and a 14.8-million-edge Beijing ride-hailing graph, the resulting embeddings beat comparison methods on node labeling, clustering, similarity ranking, and activity prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the meaning of a chain of relations is exactly the layered composition of the single-step relation transforms; if the true semantics of a longer path cannot be built from the one-step maps in this sequential way, the training objective has no correct answer to converge to.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With AHINE, no expert-specified meta paths are needed; any relation chain from random walks or time-ordered trajectories can feed the model.
Because GHINE is the chain-length-1 case, a single framework covers both first-order and higher-order relations, and pretraining on single relations improves the adaptive model.
If the central claim holds, embeddings of non-adjacent nodes carry semantic chain information, so downstream tasks such as activity prediction can use them as features.
On public heterogeneous network benchmarks, AHINE reports better classification, clustering, and similarity-ranking results than walk-based and meta-path-based comparison methods.
The same edge-type transforms are shared across all chains, so the model's parameter count grows with the number of relation types rather than the number of distinct chains.

Reading between the lines

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

If compositionality truly holds, then AHINE should generalize to longer chains than those seen in training: train on chains of length at most 2 and test on length-3 chains; success would confirm the composition mechanism rather than memorization of chain patterns.
The ride-hailing chain generation from daily passenger trajectories means AHINE may be encoding temporal sequence patterns, not just graph structure; one could probe this by reversing the relations in a chain and checking whether prediction degrades as expected.
Relation types in the ride-hailing case are time-of-day and weekday combinations, so the per-edge-type composition mechanism is a natural template for temporal or dynamic networks where edges carry timestamps.
The choice of chain generation procedure likely shapes what semantics the model learns, since random walks on bibliographic networks and daily walks on ride-hailing networks emphasize different kinds of higher-order relations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you work on heterogeneous network embedding. The core proposal is GHINE/AHINE: each edge type gets its own small MLP, and AHINE composes these MLPs along sampled relation chains to predict the end node from the start node. That moves beyond meta-path-based methods and is a real combination, not just a relabeling. The dynamic computation graph implementation is a sensible way to handle variable-length chains, and the ride-hailing application (28k POI cells, 14.8M edges) is a genuine large-scale industrial test. I also give credit for being explicit about training instability and recommending a fix; not everyone admits that underflow can abort training.

The soft spots are exactly what the stress test flags. Tables II and III show single runs, no error bars, no significance tests. Some margins are thin: DBIS MAP@100 is 0.4144 vs 0.4081; AMINER Micro-F1 is 0.8892 vs 0.8763. For stochastic training on random walks with negative sampling, that scale is within ordinary seed noise. So the sentence "outperforms state-of-the-art" is not yet supported. Also, no code or data release, so a reproducibility check is impossible right now. A separate conceptual gap: Eq. 7 assumes relation-chain semantics are functional composition of per-edge transforms. The paper states this without analysis. It may work in practice, but it is not justified beyond intuition, and the chain generation differs between datasets (daily rides vs random walks), so we do not know how robust the assumption is.

These are addressable. The method is not broken on its own terms, and the industrial result, though only an AUC gain of about 0.009 over DeepWalk, is at least directionally consistent. I do not think this is paradigm-shifting, but it is a legitimate, well-described contribution to the subfield.

Who should read it: people building HIN embedding methods or applying embeddings to transportation graphs. It deserves a serious referee; an editor should not desk-reject. My recommendation: send it to review, and demand repeated runs with variance, paired significance tests, and, if at all possible, code or data for the public datasets.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GHINE and AHINE, two unsupervised methods for embedding heterogeneous information networks. GHINE models each edge type by a distinct deep neural network and learns embeddings by predicting target nodes from source nodes through a softmax objective. AHINE extends GHINE by composing edge-type-specific transforms along relation chains of length up to c, aiming to capture higher-order semantics between non-adjacent nodes. The methods are evaluated on a large ride-hailing POI network and two public bibliographic datasets (DBIS and AMINER) on node clustering, node classification, and similarity ranking. The central claim is that AHINE outperforms state-of-the-art HIN embedding methods while requiring no meta paths.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution by proposing a meta-path-free HIN embedding approach that handles multiple relation types through compositional deep models. The algorithm descriptions are clear, and the dynamic computation graph construction is a practical technique. The application to a large-scale ride-hailing network demonstrates industrial relevance. However, the headline performance gains are not statistically validated, and the core compositionality assumption is left unexamined. These issues currently weaken the claims and must be addressed before the results can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)

[§V, Tables II and III] The central claim that AHINE outperforms state-of-the-art methods rests on single-run results with no variance, significance tests, or sensitivity analysis. For example, in DBIS the MAP@100 gap between AHINE and metapath2vec is 0.4144 vs 0.4081 (Δ≈0.006), and in AMINER the Micro-F1 gap is 0.8892 vs 0.8763 (Δ≈0.013). These differences are of the same scale as typical run-to-run noise for stochastic embedding procedures based on random walks, negative sampling, and SGD. The paper itself reports in §V-B an 'underflow' error that can abort training, indicating fragile optimization. Without repeated runs or paired significance tests, the superiority claim is not statistically supported.
[§IV-B, Eq. (7)] The model assumes that the semantic relation between two non-adjacent nodes can be approximated by composing per-edge-type nonlinear maps, i.e., f_{e_m}(...f_{e_1}(Φ(v_i))) ≈ Φ(v_j). This is an untested representational assumption. The paper provides no evidence that such compositionality holds for real HINs, no analysis of when it fails, and the chain generation differs across datasets (daily passenger walks in RH vs random walks/meta paths in bibliographic data). A concrete validation would be to measure the reconstruction error of Eq. (7) on held-out chains of varying lengths and edge-type combinations, or to compare against a simpler composition (e.g., a sum or average of transforms) to justify the added complexity.
[§V-B] The training details are insufficient for reproducibility. The paper does not report the learning rates for the embedding layer and hidden layers (despite recommending different values), the negative sampling distribution, the number of GHINE pretraining iterations, or the exact random walk/meta-path generation procedure for the bibliographic datasets. The 'underflow' tip suggests that the training is highly sensitive to hyperparameters. Without these details, a third party cannot reproduce the reported results, which is especially problematic given the small performance margins.

minor comments (5)

[§IV, Eqs. (3) and (9)] The softmax in Eqs. (3) and (9) is over all nodes, which is impractical for large graphs; the paper mentions negative sampling but does not specify the sampling distribution, which is an important implementation detail.
[§V-C1] The activity prediction experiment uses a single random 80/20 split with no repetition or cross-validation, so the reported AUC differences between methods may not be stable.
[§V-D] The description of the bibliographic evaluation is sparse: the paper does not state how many queries are used for similarity ranking, how labels are matched, or whether the same train/test split is used for all baselines.
[General] There are several typos and minor errors, including 'serveral limitations' in §II-A, 'Addiction' instead of 'In addition' in §II-B, 'inputed' in §V-D, and 'heterogenous' used in several places instead of 'heterogeneous'.
[§IV-C] The definition of the relation set in Eq. (13) is visually confusing; it would be clearer to state that the edge types are the Cartesian product of the two listed sets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: AHINE's training objective is self-contained and all headline evaluations use held-out tasks; the model's compositionality assumption is an untested modeling choice, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central training objective (Eq. 4 for GHINE and Eq. 10 for AHINE) is a standard negative log-likelihood over sampled triples or relation chains. The parameters—node embeddings Φ and per-edge transforms f_e—are learned from graph structure alone, with no supervision from the downstream labels, AUC, or MAP@K metrics. The statement that AHINE 'preserves relationship chains' is a description of its objective, not a prediction independently derived from its inputs; the paper does not use training likelihood as evidence of superiority. All reported successes are measured on held-out data: the activity prediction experiment uses a separate ride-hailing dataset with 19,280,562 orders and an 80/20 train/test split; node classification uses an 80/20 split on labeled authors; similarity ranking relies on third-party venue labels. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no downstream metric is used to train the embeddings. The self-citations in references [2] and [40] appear only as related-work and application context; they provide no load-bearing theorem, uniqueness argument, or fitted constant. External baselines such as DeepWalk, LINE, metapath2vec, and HHNE are used in Tables I–III. The compositionality assumption in Eq. 7 is an untested representational assumption, and the single-run results with small margins are a statistical robustness concern, but these are correctness risks, not evidence of circularity: the assumption is not derived from the conclusion, and the evaluation is not forced by construction. Therefore, no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard skip-gram and negative sampling machinery (standard_math) and on the domain assumption that relation types are stable nonlinear transforms and that paths generated by walks carry predictive signal. Hyperparameters such as chain length, embedding size, and network width are chosen without sensitivity analysis; they are not fitted to the target tasks but are nonetheless ad hoc.

free parameters (6)

max_chain_length_c = 3
Set in Section V-B; no sensitivity analysis.
embedding_dimension = 30 (RH), 50 (DBIS/AMINER)
Standard choice; no analysis of effect.
hidden_layer_size = 200
Chosen for the 4-layer relation networks; no ablation.
neural_network_depth = 4 layers (input, two hidden, output)
Described in Section V-B; no comparison of depths.
negative_samples = 5
Set for both proposed methods and baselines.
walk_parameters = walks per node=100, walk length=50, context window=3
Shared across walk-based baselines and AHINE's chain generation; no sensitivity analysis.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Relation chains generated from random walks or meta paths are semantically meaningful training samples for predicting endpoint nodes.
Section IV-B and V-B: AHINE uses random walks (or meta paths) to generate chains; the quality of embeddings depends on this assumption.
domain assumption Each relation type can be modeled as a fixed nonlinear transformation in the embedding space.
Section IV-A Eq. 1: f_e(Phi(v1)) = Phi(v2); this is the core modeling assumption.
standard math Shared embedding layer and softmax weights, with negative sampling, is a valid approximation of the likelihood objective.
Section IV-A, Eq. 3 and negative sampling; standard in skip-gram models.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AHINE: Adaptive Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNRW3WCA

@misc{pith2026190901087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AHINE: Adaptive Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNRW3WCA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01087}
}

read the original abstract

Network embedding is an effective way to solve the network analytics problems such as node classification, link prediction, etc. It represents network elements using low dimensional vectors such that the graph structural information and properties are maximumly preserved. Many prior works focused on embeddings for networks with the same type of edges or vertices, while some works tried to generate embeddings for heterogeneous network using mechanisms like specially designed meta paths. In this paper, we propose two novel algorithms, GHINE (General Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding) and AHINE (Adaptive Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding), to compute distributed representations for elements in heterogeneous networks. Specially, AHINE uses an adaptive deep model to learn network embeddings that maximizes the likelihood of preserving the relationship chains between non-adjacent nodes. We apply our embeddings to a large network of points of interest (POIs) and achieve superior accuracy on some prediction problems on a ride-hailing platform. In addition, we show that AHINE outperforms state-of-the-art methods on a set of learning tasks on public datasets, including node labelling and similarity ranking in bibliographic networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01087 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Meta path examples for DBLP HIN in Fig. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** General Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Adaptive Heterogeneous Information Network Embedding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ride-hailing POI Grid Heterogeneous Information Network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Generate the training samples of AHINE. Max chain length c is set to 3 in this experiment. From a daily walk including n (n ≥ 2) POI nodes, we form max(0, n − 3) samples of chain length 3, max(0, n − 2) samples of chain length 2 and n − 1 samples of chain length 1 in t…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: AHINE POI clustering by K-means (K=20) on Beijing’s map. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Top 30 similar POIs to Beijing Railway Station. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

SPARC: self-paced network representation for few-shot rare category characterization,

D. Zhou, J. He, H. Yang, and W. Fan, “SPARC: self-paced network representation for few-shot rare category characterization,” in Proceed- ings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018, pp. 2807–2816, 2018

work page 2018
[2]

Spatiotemporal multi-graph convolution network for ride- hailing demand forecasting,

G. Xu, L. Yaguang, W. Leye, Z. Lingyu, Y . Qiang, Y . Jieping, and L. Yan, “Spatiotemporal multi-graph convolution network for ride- hailing demand forecasting,” in Association for the Advancement of Artiﬁcial Intelligence, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Real-time personalization using embeddings for search ranking at airbnb,

M. Grbovic and H. Cheng, “Real-time personalization using embeddings for search ranking at airbnb,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pp. 311–320, ACM, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information,

S. Cao, W. Lu, and Q. Xu, “Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM Inter- national on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pp. 891–900, ACM, 2015

work page 2015
[5]

Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations,

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

2014
[6]

Line: Large-scale information network embedding,

J. Tang, M. Qu, M. Wang, M. Zhang, J. Yan, and Q. Mei, “Line: Large-scale information network embedding,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web , pp. 1067–1077, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2015

2015
[7]

node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,

A. Grover and J. Leskovec, “node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 855–864, ACM, 2016

2016
[8]

Structural deep network embedding,

D. Wang, P. Cui, and W. Zhu, “Structural deep network embedding,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 1225–1234, ACM, 2016

2016

Show all 44 references

[9]

Homophily, structure, and content augmented network representation learning,

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

2016
[10]

The dblp computer science bibliography: Evolution, research issues, perspectives,

M. Ley, “The dblp computer science bibliography: Evolution, research issues, perspectives,” in International symposium on string processing and information retrieval , pp. 1–10, Springer, 2002

2002
[11]

Yago: a core of semantic knowledge,

F. M. Suchanek, G. Kasneci, and G. Weikum, “Yago: a core of semantic knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 697–706, ACM, 2007

2007
[12]

Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data,

S. Auer, C. Bizer, G. Kobilarov, J. Lehmann, R. Cyganiak, and Z. Ives, “Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data,” Semantic Web, vol. 4825, pp. 11–15, 2007

2007
[13]

Freebase:a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowl- edge,

K. Bollacker, C. Evans, P. Paritosh, T. Sturge, and J. Taylor, “Freebase:a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowl- edge,” in ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1247–1250, 2008

2008
[14]

Attention based meta path fusion for hetero- geneous information network embedding,

H. Ji, C. Shi, and B. Wang, “Attention based meta path fusion for hetero- geneous information network embedding,” in Paciﬁc Rim International Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , pp. 348–360, Springer, 2018

2018
[15]

Task-guided and path-augmented heterogeneous network embedding for author identiﬁcation,

T. Chen and Y . Sun, “Task-guided and path-augmented heterogeneous network embedding for author identiﬁcation,” in Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , pp. 295–304, ACM, 2017

2017
[16]

metapath2vec: Scalable rep- resentation learning for heterogeneous networks,

Y . Dong, N. V . Chawla, and A. Swami, “metapath2vec: Scalable rep- resentation learning for heterogeneous networks,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pp. 135–144, ACM, 2017

2017
[17]

Unsupervised meta-path selection for text similarity measure based on heterogeneous information networks,

C. Wang, Y . Song, H. Li, Z. Ming, and J. Han, “Unsupervised meta-path selection for text similarity measure based on heterogeneous information networks,” Data Mining & Knowledge Discovery , pp. 1–33, 2018

2018
[18]

Shine+: A gen- eral framework for domain-speciﬁc entity linking with heterogeneous information networks,

W. Shen, J. Han, J. Wang, X. Yuan, and Z. Yang, “Shine+: A gen- eral framework for domain-speciﬁc entity linking with heterogeneous information networks,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 353–366, 2018

2018
[19]

Distant meta- path similarities for text-based heterogeneous information networks,

C. Wang, Y . Song, H. Li, Y . Sun, M. Zhang, and J. Han, “Distant meta- path similarities for text-based heterogeneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1629–1638, ACM, 2017

2017
[20]

Prep: Path-based relevance from a probabilistic perspective in heterogeneous information networks,

Y . Shi, P.-W. Chan, H. Zhuang, H. Gui, and J. Han, “Prep: Path-based relevance from a probabilistic perspective in heterogeneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pp. 425–434, ACM, 2017

2017
[21]

Text classiﬁcation with heterogeneous information network kernels.,

C. Wang, Y . Song, H. Li, M. Zhang, and J. Han, “Text classiﬁcation with heterogeneous information network kernels.,” in AAAI, pp. 2130–2136, 2016

2016
[22]

Hyperbolic heterogeneous information network embedding,

X. Wang, Y . Zhang, and C. Shi, “Hyperbolic heterogeneous information network embedding,” in AAAI, 2019

2019
[23]

Heterogeneous infor- mation network embedding for recommendation,

W. X. Z. Chuan Shi, Binbin Hu and P. S. Yu., “Heterogeneous infor- mation network embedding for recommendation,” in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (TKDE) , IEEE, 2018

2018
[24]

Embedding of embedding (eoe): Joint embedding for coupled heterogeneous networks,

L. Xu, X. Wei, J. Cao, and P. S. Yu, “Embedding of embedding (eoe): Joint embedding for coupled heterogeneous networks,” in Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 741–749, ACM, 2017

2017
[25]

Heterogeneous network embedding via deep architectures,

S. Chang, W. Han, J. Tang, G.-J. Qi, C. C. Aggarwal, and T. S. Huang, “Heterogeneous network embedding via deep architectures,” in Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pp. 119–128, ACM, 2015

2015
[26]

Bl-mne: emerging heterogeneous social network embedding through broad learn- ing with aligned autoencoder,

J. Zhang, C. Xia, C. Zhang, L. Cui, Y . Fu, and S. Y . Philip, “Bl-mne: emerging heterogeneous social network embedding through broad learn- ing with aligned autoencoder,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , pp. 605–614, IEEE, 2017

2017
[27]

Shine: Signed heterogeneous information network embedding for sentiment link prediction,

H. Wang, F. Zhang, M. Hou, X. Xie, M. Guo, and Q. Liu, “Shine: Signed heterogeneous information network embedding for sentiment link prediction,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 592–600, ACM, 2018

2018
[28]

Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality,

T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, C. Kai, G. Corrado, and J. Dean, “Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality,” Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 26, pp. 3111– 3119, 2013

2013
[29]

struc2vec: Learning node representations from structural identity,

L. F. Ribeiro, P. H. Saverese, and D. R. Figueiredo, “struc2vec: Learning node representations from structural identity,” inProceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 385–394, ACM, 2017

2017
[30]

Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications,

J. Zhou, G. Cui, Z. Zhang, C. Yang, Z. Liu, L. Wang, C. Li, and M. Sun, “Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08434, 2018

2018 arXiv
[31]

Semi-supervised classiﬁcation with graph convolutional networks,

T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classiﬁcation with graph convolutional networks,” in International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations (ICLR), 2017

2017
[32]

Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” in NIPS, 2017

2017
[33]

Graph attention networks,

P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, and Y . Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2018

2018
[34]

Meta- path guided embedding for similarity search in large-scale heterogeneous information networks,

J. Shang, M. Qu, J. Liu, L. M. Kaplan, J. Han, and J. Peng, “Meta- path guided embedding for similarity search in large-scale heterogeneous information networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.09769 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[35]

Hin2vec: Explore meta-paths in heterogeneous information networks for representation learning,

T.-y. Fu, W.-C. Lee, and Z. Lei, “Hin2vec: Explore meta-paths in heterogeneous information networks for representation learning,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1797–1806, ACM, 2017

2017
[36]

Pathsim: Meta path- based top-k similarity search in heterogeneous information networks,

Y . Sun, J. Han, X. Yan, P. S. Yu, and T. Wu, “Pathsim: Meta path- based top-k similarity search in heterogeneous information networks,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 992–1003, 2011

2011
[37]

Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks,

J. Tang, J. Zhang, L. Yao, J. Li, L. Zhang, and Z. Su, “Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks,” in Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 990–998, ACM, 2008

2008
[38]

Regal: Representation learning-based graph alignment,

M. Heimann, H. Shen, T. Safavi, and D. Koutra, “Regal: Representation learning-based graph alignment,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pp. 117–126, ACM, 2018

2018
[39]

Tensorﬂow: a system for large-scale machine learning.,

M. Abadi, P. Barham, J. Chen, Z. Chen, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, G. Irving, M. Isard, et al. , “Tensorﬂow: a system for large-scale machine learning.,” in OSDI, vol. 16, pp. 265–283, 2016

2016
[40]

A taxi order dispatch model based on combinatorial optimization,

L. Zhang, T. Hu, Y . Min, G. Wu, J. Zhang, P. Feng, P. Gong, and J. Ye, “A taxi order dispatch model based on combinatorial optimization,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pp. 2151–2159, ACM, 2017

2017
[41]

Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,

T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,” in Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 785–794, ACM, 2016

2016
[42]

Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm,

J. A. Hartigan and M. A. Wong, “Algorithm as 136: A k-means clustering algorithm,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C (Applied Statistics) , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 1979

1979
[43]

T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of information theory . John Wiley & Sons, 2012

2012
[44]

Learning to rank for information retrieval,

T.-Y . Liu et al., “Learning to rank for information retrieval,”Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 225–331, 2009

2009

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

SPARC: self-paced network representation for few-shot rare category characterization,

D. Zhou, J. He, H. Yang, and W. Fan, “SPARC: self-paced network representation for few-shot rare category characterization,” in Proceed- ings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD 2018, London, UK, August 19-23, 2018, pp. 2807–2816, 2018

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Spatiotemporal multi-graph convolution network for ride- hailing demand forecasting,

G. Xu, L. Yaguang, W. Leye, Z. Lingyu, Y . Qiang, Y . Jieping, and L. Yan, “Spatiotemporal multi-graph convolution network for ride- hailing demand forecasting,” in Association for the Advancement of Artiﬁcial Intelligence, 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Real-time personalization using embeddings for search ranking at airbnb,

M. Grbovic and H. Cheng, “Real-time personalization using embeddings for search ranking at airbnb,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , pp. 311–320, ACM, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information,

S. Cao, W. Lu, and Q. Xu, “Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information,” in Proceedings of the 24th ACM Inter- national on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pp. 891–900, ACM, 2015

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations,

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

2014

[6] [6]

Line: Large-scale information network embedding,

J. Tang, M. Qu, M. Wang, M. Zhang, J. Yan, and Q. Mei, “Line: Large-scale information network embedding,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web , pp. 1067–1077, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2015

2015

[7] [7]

node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,

A. Grover and J. Leskovec, “node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 855–864, ACM, 2016

2016

[8] [8]

Structural deep network embedding,

D. Wang, P. Cui, and W. Zhu, “Structural deep network embedding,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pp. 1225–1234, ACM, 2016

2016