A Hybrid TGN-SEAL Model for Dynamic Graph Link Prediction

Behnam Bahrak; Mahdi Jafari Siavoshani; Nafiseh Sadat Sajadi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

A Hybrid TGN-SEAL Model for Dynamic Graph Link Prediction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing a temporal network's link predictor with a subgraph-classifying GNN improves link prediction in sparse dynamic networks.

desk verdict Plausible hybrid, but the DGCNN citation undercuts the topology story and the evaluation is too thin to trust the 2.6% gain. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14239 v3 pith:NVSK7T43 submitted 2026-02-15 cs.SI cs.AIcs.LG

Nafiseh Sadat Sajadi , Behnam Bahrak , Mahdi Jafari Siavoshani This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SIcs.AIcs.LG

keywords dynamiclinkpredictiontemporalgraphnetworksenclosingsubgraphsneuralcalldetailrecordscontinuous-timegraphsSEALDGCNN

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that in sparse, continuously evolving networks, link prediction improves when the final scoring step is not a simple pairwise classifier but a graph neural network that reads the enclosing subgraph around each candidate link. On the Reality Mining call-detail dataset, the proposed hybrid, TGN-SEAL, achieves mean average precision of 0.945±0.002 on unseen nodes and 0.976±0.001 on seen nodes, roughly 2.6% and 1.6% above a standard TGN. The paper reads this as evidence that temporal memory and local topology carry complementary information, and that fusing them helps exactly where static heuristics and temporal-only models struggle. That would matter for applications—telecom, recommendations, security—where interactions are time-stamped and sparse.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the enclosing-subgraph classifier grafted onto TGN. For every candidate interaction at time t, the model induces the k-hop subgraph around the two endpoints using only edges that occurred before t, assigns each node a Double-Radius Node Labeling (DRNL) one-hot structural label, concatenates that with the node's TGN temporal embedding, and passes the resulting labeled subgraph to a Dynamic Graph CNN (DGCNN) that outputs the link probability. The critical temporal guard is the delayed memory update: TGN memory is refreshed only after all predictions in the batch are made, which the paper identifies as preventing target-link information from leaking into the node repr

What would settle it

On the same Reality Mining data, shuffle event timestamps (destroying temporal order but keeping graph structure) and rerun TGN-SEAL; if mAP stays near 0.945, the temporal memory is not doing the work. Alternatively, inspect whether any positive edge's future incident edges appear in its enclosing subgraph or in the memory states used to compute its embedding; any such occurrence means leakage and invalidates the comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that TGN-SEAL—which keeps TGN's event-driven memory and temporal embeddings but replaces the MLP link predictor with a DGCNN that classifies the enclosing subgraph induced by the k-hop neighborhoods of the two candidate nodes—outperforms several temporal baselines on the Reality Mining call network. Each node in the subgraph receives a feature vector that concatenates its TGN temporal embedding with a one-hot DRNL structural label, so the classifier can exploit both recent interaction history and position relative to the candidate link. The stated result is a mean average precision of 0.945±0.002 on unseen nodes and 0.976±0.001 on seen nodes

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if the temporal setup leaks future information: subgraphs must be built only from events before time t and memory must be updated only after predictions, and if either step accidentally uses future or target-link information, the mAP gains are artifacts rather than real predictive skill.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the result holds, dynamic link prediction should be framed as subgraph classification over temporally grounded neighborhoods, not just pairwise embedding scoring.
Sparse continuous-time networks—call records, messaging logs—can get a meaningful accuracy boost from combining event memory with local topology, even when interactions are transient.
The improvement on unseen node pairs suggests the learned structural signal transfers beyond the exact nodes seen in training, which matters for cold-start prediction.
The added cost of subgraph extraction means efficient sampling and subgraph approximation become the practical bottleneck for scaling the approach.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct implication the paper leaves implicit: the same hybrid should be testable on other sparse evolving networks (social, e-commerce, protein interaction), but the evidence here is limited to one call dataset, so generalization is an open empirical question.
The reported gain may be sensitive to the negative-sampling strategy and the choice of k in the enclosing subgraph; ablating those could reveal whether the benefit comes from approximating higher-order heuristics or simply from having more expressive node features.
One could test the complementarity hypothesis directly by feeding the DGCNN only structural features, only temporal embeddings, and both, on several datasets, to see if the joint gain is consistent.
If leakage is the real driver, the performance gap might shrink or vanish under stricter temporal splits; a randomized-timestamp control experiment would settle it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper is a clean engineering extension—swap TGN's MLP decoder for a subgraph GNN and hope to pick up structural signal. That's a reasonable thing to try, and the reported gain on Reality Mining (~2.6% mAP on unseen nodes) is plausible but not proven.

What's genuinely new: the combination of TGN temporal embeddings with SEAL-style subgraph extraction, and the authors actually delay memory updates until after predictions, which is the correct way to avoid leakage. That's a nice detail. They also release code and report 15 runs with a Mann–Whitney test, so they're not just showing one lucky seed.

The problems are mostly in the experimental write-up. No negative sampling protocol, no split details, no hyperparameters, no dataset statistics after preprocessing. The abstract mentions a 'CDR, email, message dataset' but the body only analyzes Reality Mining call records. Table 1 is garbled, and the TGN-no-mem and TGAT rows are identical to three decimal places—surely a copy-paste error. One dataset, modest improvement.

The bigger issue is architectural. The cited DGCNN (Wang et al. 2019) constructs kNN graphs from node features; it doesn't consume an input graph adjacency. If the implementation follows that reference, the enclosing subgraph topology is never used in message passing. The gain could then come entirely from swapping an MLP for a more expressive classifier on the same node features. No ablation with shuffled or removed topology isolates this. This is the load-bearing detail for the paper's central claim, and it is left ambiguous. The public code presumably settles it, but the manuscript alone doesn't.

The leakage concern from the reader's report is less worrying—the delayed memory update is the right pattern—but it still needs explicit description of how negatives are sampled and where the subgraphs come from.

So: the attempt is sensible, the execution is incomplete, and the key mechanism is currently unverified. I'd send it to review because a competent referee can ask for the missing details and check the code. If the code uses true subgraph adjacency, this becomes a solid incremental contribution; if not, it's a different (and much weaker) result. A reading group could have a good time poking at the DGCNN issue, but I wouldn't cite it yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TGN-SEAL, a hybrid dynamic link-prediction model that combines TGN's memory-based temporal embeddings with SEAL-style enclosing-subgraph extraction. For each candidate interaction (u,v,t), a k-hop enclosing subgraph of edges prior to time t is extracted, nodes are labeled with DRNL one-hot structural labels, and their features (TGN embeddings concatenated with DRNL labels) are fed into a DGCNN that outputs a link probability. The TGN memory is updated only after predictions for the batch. On the Reality Mining CDR dataset, the authors report mAP of 0.945±0.002 on unseen nodes and 0.976±0.001 on seen nodes, outperforming Jodie, DyRep, TGAT, and three TGN variants, with p<0.01 from Mann–Whitney U tests. The central claim is that jointly modeling temporal memory and local subgraph topology improves link prediction in sparse dynamic networks.

Significance. If the results hold under a rigorous temporal evaluation, TGN-SEAL would be a useful practical contribution: it demonstrates that subgraph-based predictors can be integrated with continuous-time GNNs, and it targets a real, sparse CDR dataset. The paper has genuine strengths: it reports statistical significance across multiple runs, compares against several representative baselines, and provides data/code availability statements. The architecture is simple and falsifiable. However, the current manuscript is severely under-specified on the evaluation protocol, and the citation of DGCNN raises a load-bearing ambiguity about whether the subgraph topology is actually used. The significance is therefore conditional on the authors clarifying the implementation and supplying a complete experimental description.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Step 5; Figure 2] The manuscript attributes the subgraph classifier to 'DGCNN architecture [23]', where [23] is Wang et al. 2019, Dynamic Graph CNN for point clouds. That DGCNN constructs a k-nearest-neighbor graph from node features via EdgeConv; it does not consume an input adjacency matrix. The paper never states whether or how the enclosing-subgraph edges are injected into the EdgeConv layers. If the implementation follows the cited architecture literally, the GNN never sees the subgraph topology, and the reported gains would reflect only the DRNL one-hot labels and temporal embeddings passed through a stronger classifier. This is load-bearing for the central claim that local topology improves prediction. Please (i) specify precisely how the enclosing subgraph's adjacency is used in the DGCNN, or (ii) provide an ablation in which EdgeConv builds graphs from node features without subgraph-edge informat
[Sections 3.2, 3.3, 4; Table 1] The evaluation protocol is under-specified. The manuscript does not state: the negative-sampling strategy (e.g., random, temporal, or fixed ratio), the chronological train/validation/test split (including how 'unseen nodes' are defined and whether test edges are filtered from memory updates), the preprocessed dataset statistics (number of nodes, interactions, time span, number of positive/negative samples), or any hyperparameter values (learning rate, batch size, number of epochs, embedding dimensions, number of DGCNN layers, choice of k used to produce Table 1). Section 3.2 says 'we set k=2 and k=3', but Table 1 reports a single number. Without this information, the mAP values cannot be reproduced, and the 2.6%/1.6% improvement claim is not independently checkable.
[Table 1] The TGN-SEAL row is corrupted: it prints '0.945±0.0020.945±0.0020.945±0.002 0.976±0.001 0.976±0.0010.976±0.001'. As typeset, the table does not actually report the claimed values in a readable manner. This must be fixed and the numbers verified against the text, which claims approximately 2.6% improvement on unseen nodes and 1.6% on seen nodes.
[Section 4, Table 1] The paper ablates the TGN components (no-mem, id, time) but never ablates the proposed subgraph predictor. The comparison to TGN variants conflates two changes: replacing the MLP with a DGCNN and adding subgraph topology/DRNL labels. A TGN-SEAL variant with the DRNL features but an MLP predictor, or a DGCNN on randomized subgraph edges, would be needed to attribute the gain to local topology. Without such an ablation, the claim that 'enclosing subgraphs... capture localized structural patterns' (Section 5) is not directly supported by the experiments reported.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract says 'Experiments on a sparse CDR, email, message dataset' but Section 3.3 describes only CDR call logs. Please clarify which datasets were actually used, or remove the email/message wording.
[Section 3.3 / Section 4] The preprocessed dataset statistics are missing. Please state the number of nodes, the number of call events after filtering, the time span, and the number of positive/negative samples used for training and evaluation.
[Section 4] The Mann–Whitney U test is mentioned but not fully specified. State exactly what is being compared (e.g., the distribution of run-level mAP values across at least fifteen runs) and whether any multiple-comparison correction was applied.
[Figures 3 and 4] Figures 3 and 4 are referenced but not described in the text. Add captions and refer to them explicitly in the Results section so the reader can interpret the training-loss curves and mAP plots.
[Various] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'T emporal' in Section 3.2, double period 'networks..' in Section 2, and the TGN-no-mem row in Table 1 is identical to TGAT (0.793±0.009 / 0.824±0.012), which looks suspicious and needs an explanation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: empirical architecture comparison with externally cited components; no fitted value is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison of a hybrid model (TGN-SEAL) against baselines on a held-out temporal link prediction task. The architecture combines TGN temporal embeddings (cited to Rossi et al. [22]) with SEAL-style enclosing-subgraph extraction and DRNL labeling (cited to Zhang and Chen [20]), then feeds the concatenated features to a DGCNN (cited to Wang et al. [23]). No parameter is fitted to the test set and then reported as a prediction; the reported mAP values come from multiple training runs and are evaluated on unseen/seen node pairs. The improvement quoted in Section 4 is a measured held-out difference, not an algebraic consequence of the model's definitions. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, and its load-bearing prior results come from external authors with no overlap with the present authors, so no self-citation chain carries the argument. The skeptic concern that DGCNN, as cited, builds kNN graphs rather than consuming the enclosing-subgraph adjacency is an implementation/correctness question, not a circularity: even if the implementation does not use the extracted topology as intended, the reported mAP would still be an empirical measurement rather than an input equivalent to the output by construction. Likewise, the temporal leakage-prevention assumption is an experimental-validity concern, not a definitional identity. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own text, so the circularity burden is not met.

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

The central claim rests on existing components (TGN, SEAL/DRNL, DGCNN); the paper contributes an architecture combination. The main uncharged assumptions are the leakage-free temporal setup, the representativeness of the single CDR dataset, and undisclosed hyperparameters that could influence the comparison. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Subgraph radius k = 2 and 3
Set 'following previous work' (Section 3.2, step 1); controls how much local structure is seen and directly affects the result.
TGN memory/embedding dimensions = not reported
Hidden dimensions and memory capacity are not disclosed; they determine model capacity and could affect the comparison.
Negative sampling ratio = not reported
Link prediction mAP depends strongly on how negative examples are generated; no protocol is given.
Training hyperparameters (learning rate, epochs, batch size) = not reported
No training configuration is provided, so the reported Mann-Whitney significance test cannot be independently checked.
DGCNN architecture choices = not reported
Number of graph convolution layers, sort pooling ratio, and hidden units are unspecified; these are hand-chosen design parameters.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Enclosing subgraphs are extracted from interactions strictly before time t and TGN embeddings are computed before memory update, so no target-link information leaks into features.
This is the core leakage-prevention assumption stated in Section 3.2 steps 6-8; it is not empirically validated.
domain assumption The Reality Mining call-log network is representative of sparse, continuously evolving networks and contains predictive signal for future links.
The entire evaluation rests on this single dataset, but no sparsity statistics or evidence of generalizability are provided (Section 3.3).
domain assumption DRNL structural labels combined with TGN temporal embeddings provide sufficient node features for DGCNN link prediction.
Adopted from SEAL [20]; the paper does not ablate the contribution of structural labels versus temporal embeddings.
standard math TGN memory update equations and DGCNN architecture behave as described in their original papers [22, 23].
The implementation relies on these external architectures without re-deriving them.
domain assumption mAP is an appropriate metric for the class-imbalanced setting.
The authors assert mAP is robust to imbalance (Section 4), but no other metrics or PR curves are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid TGN-SEAL Model for Dynamic Graph Link Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVSK7T43

@misc{pith2026260214239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid TGN-SEAL Model for Dynamic Graph Link Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVSK7T43}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14239}
}

read the original abstract

Predicting links in sparse, continuously evolving networks is a central challenge in network science. Conventional heuristic methods and deep learning models, including Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), are typically designed for static graphs and thus struggle to capture temporal dependencies. Snapshot-based techniques partially address this issue but often encounter data sparsity and class imbalance, particularly in networks with transient interactions such as telecommunication call detail records (CDRs). Temporal Graph Networks (TGNs) model dynamic graphs by updating node embeddings over time; however, their predictive accuracy under sparse conditions remains limited. In this study, we improve the TGN framework by extracting enclosing subgraphs around candidate links, enabling the model to jointly learn structural and temporal information. Experiments on a sparse CDR, email, message dataset show that our approach increases average precision by at least 2% over standard TGNs, demonstrating the advantages of integrating local topology for robust link prediction in dynamic networks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[23]

ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog)38(5), 1–12 (2019)

Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Liu, Z., Sarma, S.E., Bronstein, M.M., Solomon, J.M.: Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog)38(5), 1–12 (2019)

2019
[1]

Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA (2020)

Hamilton, W.L.: Graph Representation Learning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA (2020)

2020
[2]

Journal of Business Research69(11), 4811–4814 (2016)

Jalal, M.E., Hosseini, M., Karlsson, S.: Forecasting incoming call volumes in call centers with recurrent neural networks. Journal of Business Research69(11), 4811–4814 (2016)

2016
[3]

In: Social Network Data Analytics, pp

Hasan, M.A., Zaki, M.J.: A survey of link prediction in social networks. In: Social Network Data Analytics, pp. 243–275. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)

2011
[4]

In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp

Liben-Nowell, D., Kleinberg, J.: The link prediction problem for social networks. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 556–559 (2003)

2003
[5]

Artificial Intelligence Review52(3), 1961–1995 (2019)

Haghani, S., Keyvanpour, M.R.: A systemic analysis of link prediction in social network. Artificial Intelligence Review52(3), 1961–1995 (2019)

1961
[6]

In: SDM06: Workshop on Link Analysis, Counter-terrorism and Security, vol

Al Hasan, M., Chaoji, V., Salem, S., Zaki, M.: Link prediction using supervised learning. In: SDM06: Workshop on Link Analysis, Counter-terrorism and Security, vol. 30, pp. 798–805 (2006)

2006
[7]

Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications390(6), 1150–1170 (2011)

L¨ u, L., Zhou, T.: Link prediction in complex networks: A survey. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications390(6), 1150–1170 (2011)

2011

Show all 24 references

[8]

Journal of Machine Learning Research3(Dec), 679–707 (2002)

Getoor, L., Friedman, N., Koller, D., Taskar, B.: Learning probabilistic models of link structure. Journal of Machine Learning Research3(Dec), 679–707 (2002)

2002
[9]

In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

Nallapati, R.M., Ahmed, A., Xing, E.P., Cohen, W.W.: Joint latent topic models for text and citations. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 542–550 (2008)

2008
[10]

In: Proceedings of the International Biometrics Society Annual Meeting, vol

Airoldi, E.M., Blei, D.M., Fienberg, S.E., Xing, E.P., Jaakkola, T.: Mixed membership stochastic block models for relational data with application to protein-protein interactions. In: Proceedings of the International Biometrics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 15, p. 1 (2006)

2006
[11]

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2022)

Liu, Z., Zhou, J.: Introduction to Graph Neural Networks. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2022)

2022
[12]

Proceedings of the IEEE104(1), 11–33 (2015)

Nickel, M., Murphy, K., Tresp, V., Gabrilovich, E.: A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE104(1), 11–33 (2015)

2015
[13]

ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD)5(2), 1–27 (2011) 13

Dunlavy, D.M., Kolda, T.G., Acar, E.: Temporal link prediction using matrix and tensor factorizations. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD)5(2), 1–27 (2011) 13

2011
[14]

In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

Lee, C., Nick, B., Brandes, U., Cunningham, P.: Link prediction with social vector clocks. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 784–792 (2013)

2013
[15]

Procedia Computer Science60, 332–341 (2015)

Nguyen-Thi, A.-T., Nguyen, P.Q., Ngo, T.D., Nguyen-Hoang, T.-A.: Transfer adaboost svm for link prediction in newly signed social networks using explicit and pnr features. Procedia Computer Science60, 332–341 (2015)

2015
[16]

Social Networks44, 105–116 (2016)

Sewell, D.K., Chen, Y.: Latent space models for dynamic networks with weighted edges. Social Networks44, 105–116 (2016)

2016
[17]

In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

Grover, A., Leskovec, J.: node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 855–864 (2016)

2016
[18]

Advances in neural information processing systems26(2013)

Socher, R., Chen, D., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.: Reasoning with neural tensor net- works for knowledge base completion. Advances in neural information processing systems26(2013)

2013
[19]

AI open1, 57–81 (2020)

Zhou, J., Cui, G., Hu, S., Zhang, Z., Yang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, L., Li, C., Sun, M.: Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI open1, 57–81 (2020)

2020
[20]

Advances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

Zhang, M., Chen, Y.: Link prediction based on graph neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

2018
[21]

Journal of Machine Learning Research21(70), 1–73 (2020)

Kazemi, S.M., Goel, R., Jain, K., Kobyzev, I., Sethi, A., Forsyth, P., Poupart, P.: Representation learning for dynamic graphs: A survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research21(70), 1–73 (2020)

2020
[22]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10637 (2020)

Rossi, E., Chamberlain, B., Frasca, F., Eynard, D., Monti, F., Bronstein, M.: Temporal graph networks for deep learning on dynamic graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10637 (2020)

2006 arXiv
[24]

Personal and ubiquitous computing10(4), 255–268 (2006) 14

Eagle, N., Pentland, A.: Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Personal and ubiquitous computing10(4), 255–268 (2006) 14

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog)38(5), 1–12 (2019)

Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Liu, Z., Sarma, S.E., Bronstein, M.M., Solomon, J.M.: Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog)38(5), 1–12 (2019)

2019

[2] [1]

Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA (2020)

Hamilton, W.L.: Graph Representation Learning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA (2020)

2020

[3] [2]

Journal of Business Research69(11), 4811–4814 (2016)

Jalal, M.E., Hosseini, M., Karlsson, S.: Forecasting incoming call volumes in call centers with recurrent neural networks. Journal of Business Research69(11), 4811–4814 (2016)

2016

[4] [3]

In: Social Network Data Analytics, pp

Hasan, M.A., Zaki, M.J.: A survey of link prediction in social networks. In: Social Network Data Analytics, pp. 243–275. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2011)

2011

[5] [4]

In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp

Liben-Nowell, D., Kleinberg, J.: The link prediction problem for social networks. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 556–559 (2003)

2003

[6] [5]

Artificial Intelligence Review52(3), 1961–1995 (2019)

Haghani, S., Keyvanpour, M.R.: A systemic analysis of link prediction in social network. Artificial Intelligence Review52(3), 1961–1995 (2019)

1961

[7] [6]

In: SDM06: Workshop on Link Analysis, Counter-terrorism and Security, vol

Al Hasan, M., Chaoji, V., Salem, S., Zaki, M.: Link prediction using supervised learning. In: SDM06: Workshop on Link Analysis, Counter-terrorism and Security, vol. 30, pp. 798–805 (2006)

2006

[8] [7]

Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications390(6), 1150–1170 (2011)

L¨ u, L., Zhou, T.: Link prediction in complex networks: A survey. Physica A: statistical mechanics and its applications390(6), 1150–1170 (2011)

2011