Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Spectral Subspace Clustering for Attributed Graphs

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that attributed-graph subspace clustering can be solved by a truncated SVD of a normalized smoothed representation, and that the resulting algorithms beat 17 baselines on 8 benchmark graphs.

desk verdict The empirical package (NSR, SVD solver, large-scale comparison) is genuinely useful, but the core theoretical claim that Eq. (7) reduces to a truncated SVD is false: U_k U_k^T is not even a local minimum of the stated objective. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11074 v1 pith:YYBYMTX6 submitted 2024-11-17 cs.SI cs.LG

Xiaoyang Lin , Renchi Yang , Haoran Zheng , Xiangyu Ke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.LG
keywords attributedgraphclusteringsubspaceself-expressivematrixtruncatedSVDconductancemodularityLaplaciansmoothing
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 tries to establish that subspace clustering, a technique normally built around an $n \times n$ self-expressive matrix that writes each data point as a combination of others, can be applied to attributed graphs without ever materializing that matrix. The claim is that the low-rank self-expression objective with orthogonality regularization is solved, approximately, by taking the top-$k$ left singular vectors of a normalized smoothed vertex representation. From this the paper builds two algorithms, S2CAG and M-S2CAG, and reports that both outperform 17 existing methods on 8 benchmark attributed graphs while running in time close to linear in graph size. If the claim holds, high-quality attributed graph clustering becomes feasible at scales where prior subspace-clustering approaches run out of memory or time.

What carries the argument

The engine is the normalized smoothed representation (NSR), $Z = \sum_{t=0}^T \frac{(1-\alpha)\alpha^t}{1-\alpha^{T+1}} \hat{P}^t \hat{X}$, built from the row-normalized adjacency $\hat{P}$ and row-normalized attribute matrix $\hat{X}$; the $L^1$-normalized weights let the decay factor $\alpha$ exceed 1, so distant-neighbor patterns are not suppressed as aggressively as in standard Laplacian smoothing. The load-bearing transformation is the orthogonal Procrustes step: after fixing the rank of the self-expressive matrix to $k$, the minimizer of Eq. (7) becomes $S = U_{(k)} U_{(k)}^\top$, turning the whole subspace-clustering problem into a truncated SVD of $Z$. The algorithm leans on the near-stochasticity of $Z Z^\top$ to discard its first singular vector as constant, and uses the SNEM rounding routine to convert the remaining singular vectors into a partition.

What would settle it

Construct or find an attributed graph with deliberately skewed degrees and attribute norms, compute the row sums of $Z Z^\top$, and compare S2CAG's accuracy using columns $2$ through $k+1$ versus columns $1$ through $k$ of the singular vectors; if the row-sum variance is large or the accuracy gap is substantial, the stochasticity assumption fails and the discarded first vector was not trivial.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the objective in Eq. (7) can be replaced by a $k$-truncated SVD of the normalized smoothed representation $Z$, with no loss in clustering quality. The orthogonal Procrustes argument shows that, with the rank constrained to $k$, the optimal self-expressive matrix is $S = U_{(k)} U_{(k)}^\top$, where $U_{(k)}$ holds the top-$k$ left singular vectors of $Z$; the affinity matrix for spectral clustering is then exactly that projection, so the remaining task is only to round $U_{(k)}$ into cluster labels. The paper also establishes that this procedure minimizes the total conductance of the affinity graph whose adjacency matrix is $Z Z^\top$, and that normalizing $Z$ turns the same machinery into a modularity-maximizing variant, M-S2CAG. Empirical results across 8 datasets with 17 baselines are presented as evidence that both variants match or exceed the state of the art in accuracy while running in near-linear time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $Z Z^\top$ has nearly constant row sums, so its first singular vector is essentially the constant vector $1/\sqrt{n}$ and can be discarded without losing cluster signal; if row sums vary widely on some attributed graph, that vector carries real clustering information and the reduction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Attributed graphs with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges can be clustered without storing an $n \times n$ affinity matrix, removing the main scalability barrier of subspace clustering.
  • Because S2CAG's objective is equivalent to minimizing total conductance on the affinity graph, the method has an interpretable graph-cut meaning rather than being a black-box embedding step.
  • The modularity variant M-S2CAG maximizes modularity through the same truncated-SVD pipeline, making modularity-based clustering of large attributed graphs practical.
  • Allowing $\alpha > 1$ in the smoothed representation can amplify far-reaching neighbor patterns, which the parameter study reports improves accuracy on several datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: on graphs with heavy-tailed degree or attribute distributions, row sums of $Z Z^\top$ are likely to vary enough that the first singular vector is informative; an adaptive version could measure row-sum variance and keep that vector when needed.
  • The same Procrustes-style reduction may extend to other self-expressive regularizers, such as sparsity-based ones, as long as the rank constraint is kept, which would bring the efficiency gain beyond low-rank representations.
  • The reported sensitivity of M-S2CAG to the modularity weight $\gamma$ near 1.0 suggests that a data-dependent default for $\gamma$, estimated from the expected edge density of the null model, could remove a tuning parameter.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two algorithms, S2CAG and M-S2CAG, for subspace clustering on attributed graphs. It formulates an objective (Eq. (7)) with a self-expressive term, a nuclear-norm low-rank term, and an orthogonality penalty, and claims that this objective can be 'reformulated' as a k-truncated SVD of a normalized smoothed representation matrix Z (Section 4.1), thereby avoiding materialization of the n-by-n self-expressive matrix. The paper then makes theoretical connections between S2CAG and conductance minimization (Lemma 4.6) and between M-S2CAG and modularity maximization (Lemma 5.1), and reports experiments on 8 attributed graph datasets showing state-of-the-art clustering accuracy and efficiency against 17 baselines.

Significance. If the proposed reduction were valid, this would be a significant algorithmic contribution: near-linear-time spectral subspace clustering for attributed graphs, with no n-by-n matrix construction, together with strong empirical evidence (best or second-best performance on all 8 datasets, e.g., 2.2% ACC improvement over SAGSC on ArXiv). The experimental study is extensive, includes a broad set of baselines, reports standard deviations, and the authors provide code and dataset links, all of which are strengths. However, the central theoretical claim that Eq. (7) is approximately solved by a truncated SVD of Z is not supported, and the associated conductance/modularity 'connections' are largely algebraic restatements. The empirical results may still have value, but the paper's theoretical grounding is currently invalid.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (7), Lemma 4.1] The claim that an approximate minimizer of Eq. (7) is S = U_k U_k^T is not substantiated. The proof of Lemma 4.1 first assumes Omega^T Omega = I to derive the trace form, then drops the orthogonality penalty entirely and solves a different rank-constrained Procrustes problem; the original objective in Eq. (7) includes the penalty term ||S^T S - I||_F^2 and the nuclear norm. Moreover, S = U_k U_k^T is not even a stationary point of Eq. (7). Consider S(c) = c U_k U_k^T for scaling factor c. The nuclear norm decreases linearly under scaling while the reconstruction and orthogonality terms increase only quadratically; the derivative of the objective at c = 1 is k > 0. Thus the 'theoretically grounded problem transformation' in Section 4.1 does not follow from Lemma 4.1, and the subsequent decomposition of spectral clustering in Lemmas 4.2-4.3 inherits this gap.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Appendix A.3 (stochasticity of Z Z^T)] The decision to discard the first left singular vector of Z (i.e., using Y'_{.,2:k+1}) rests on the assertion that Z Z^T is close to a scaled stochastic matrix. The support is empirical variance on only 5 of the 8 datasets (Tables 4-5) and the bounds in Lemmas A.1-A.3, which do not establish the required concentration. In particular, Lemma A.2 shows only that the average of beta_l over all vertices is 1, not that individual beta_l values are close to 1, and Lemma A.3 bounds pi_l only in terms of normalized-degree ratios that are not proven to be near 1. If row sums of Z Z^T vary substantially on other data, the first singular vector carries genuine cluster signal, and Lemma 4.6, which assumes beta W is a stochastic matrix, would no longer apply. This is a load-bearing unproven assumption for the algorithm's correctness interpretation.
  3. [Section 5, Lemmas 5.1 and Theorem 5.2] The claimed modularity connection is primarily a restatement of the trace objective: Lemma 5.1 rewrites the trace in Eq. (14) as exactly the modularity Q in Eq. (12), which is an algebraic equivalence rather than an independent validation of the subspace-clustering formulation. Theorem 5.2 then relies on Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2 for the assertion that S = Q Q^T optimizes Eq. (16), so it inherits the invalid derivation identified above. Furthermore, the existence of a matrix Ztilde satisfying Ztilde Ztilde^T = Zhat Zhat^T - gamma omega omega^T/(omega^T 1) is assumed without proof; for gamma > 1 this matrix may not be positive semidefinite, in which case no real Ztilde exists and the optimization problem in Eq. (16) is not well defined. The paper should either provide conditions on gamma that guarantee positive semidefiniteness or replace this step with a direct treatment of the eigenproblem.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1 (claimed theoretical grounding)] The abstract and introduction state that the efficient linear-time solver is based on a 'theoretically grounded problem transformation'. In light of the issues with Lemma 4.1 and the stochasticity assumption, this characterization is not currently justified. The empirical performance may still be valid, but the authors need to either supply a correct theoretical analysis (e.g., an approximation bound for a modified objective) or substantially weaken the claims to present S2CAG and M-S2CAG as scalable heuristics with strong empirical support. As written, the load-bearing theoretical narrative of the paper is not sound.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1, end of first paragraph] The text says 'With Lemma 4.11, our optimization objective...' but the referenced lemma is numbered Lemma 4.1. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Eq. (9) and Appendix Eq. (18)] The cost model for the integrated approach is written as '2(tau+1)*(k+o)*(dn+Tm)' in Eq. (9) but as '2(tau+1)*(k+o)*(dn+Tkm)' in Eq. (18) of Appendix A.2. The two forms are inconsistent; please unify them and verify whether the factor (k+o) is intended in the power-iteration cost.
  3. [Table 6 caption] Several parameter entries use a slash (e.g., alpha = 0.9/1.4 on Cora, T = 6/12 on Wiki) without explaining which value corresponds to S2CAG and which to M-S2CAG. Please clarify the notation in the caption or in the text.
  4. [Section 6.1, evaluation criteria paragraph] The sentence 'The best and second-best results are highlighted in blue and darker shades indicate better clustering' is confusing. Clarify that blue highlighting marks the best result and underlining or a specific notation marks the second-best.
  5. [Section 3.4, Eq. (6)] The derivation of the closed-form solution in Eq. (3) and the Neumann-series argument assume alpha in (0,1), while Eq. (6) allows alpha > 1. A brief explanation of why the truncated form remains valid for alpha > 1 would help the reader.
  6. [Appendix C, proof of Lemma 4.2] The phrase 'according to Theorem C.1 and the non-negativity of Sigma*2, the eigenvalues Sigma*2 of Z Z^T are the same as its singular values Sigma and V = V*' is unclear and appears to conflate singular values of Z with eigenvalues of Z Z^T. Please rephrase this step.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Minor definitional circularity in the modularity 'connection'; the central SVD reduction is unsound but not circular, and the empirical evaluation is self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1, Eq. (12)-(14), Lemma 5.1 and its proof in Appendix C]
    "Lemma 5.1 establishes an equivalence between our modularity-based objective in Eq. (12) and the trace maximization problem in Eq. (14). ... Let B = RR^T - γ· ωω^T/ω^T1. ... trace(C^T B C) = Σ_l Σ_{i,j∈C_l} B_{i,j} = ω^T1· Q."

    Eq. (12) defines Q on the affinity graph with W = RR^T as (1/ω^T1)Σ_l Σ_{i,j∈C_l}(W_{ij} - γω_iω_j/ω^T1), which is exactly trace(C^T(RR^T - γωω^T/ω^T1)C)/(ω^T1). Thus Eq. (14) is the same objective as Q up to the constant factor ω^T1, so Lemma 5.1 restates the definition rather than deriving an independent equivalence. This tautology does not affect the empirical comparison, but it is a self-definitional step in the claimed theoretical grounding.

full rationale

The paper's headline theoretical step (Section 4.1) claims Eq. (7) is approximately solved by S = U_(k)U_(k)^T, reducing SCAG to a k-truncated SVD of Z. That step is mathematically unsupported: the Appendix C proof of Lemma 4.1 assumes Ω^TΩ = I while requiring rank(Ω) = k, and the exact objective in Eq. (7) is not minimized at U_kU_k^T since scaling it down lowers the nuclear norm linearly while penalizing the other terms only quadratically. This is a correctness/soundness flaw, not a circularity: the claim does not reduce to its inputs by definition or by a self-citation chain. The conductance interpretation (Lemma 4.6) is a conditional theorem that also depends on the empirically supported but unproved assumption that ZZ^T is approximately a scaled stochastic matrix; again, this is an assumption-gap rather than a circular reduction. The only genuine circularity is the modularity 'equivalence' in Lemma 5.1, where Eq. (14) is the trace form of the Q defined in Eq. (12) by construction. Since that tautology is not used to fit the main experimental results, and the empirical evaluation against 17 baselines on 8 datasets is self-contained, the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is a new algorithm built from standard matrix algebra plus dataset-level hyperparameter tuning; no new particles or external entities. The key unproven inputs are the stochasticity assumption and the nuclear-norm relaxation.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (decay factor) = 0.8 to 2.5 per dataset
    Controls the tradeoff between preserving original attributes and smoothing along graph edges; tuned via grid search in Section 6.1 and varied in Fig. 2.
  • T (smoothing order) = 6 to 175 per dataset
    Number of power iterations in the NSR construction; tuned via grid search, with over-smoothing observed for large T on ArXiv (Fig. 3).
  • tau (iterations) = 4 to 100 per dataset
    Iteration count for randomized SVD and subspace iteration; chosen per dataset in Table 6.
  • gamma (modularity weight) = 0.9 on CiteSeer and Wiki, 1.0 elsewhere
    Weight in the modularity objective for M-S2CAG; Fig. 4 shows accuracy is highly sensitive to this value.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Eckart-Young theorem, Ky Fan trace maximization, Neumann series, randomized SVD error bounds
    Used in proofs of Lemmas 4.1, 4.5, 5.1, Theorem 4.4 and in the SVD-based solver.
  • domain assumption Z Z^T is approximately a scaled stochastic matrix
    Stated in Section 4.2 to justify discarding the first left singular vector; only bounded and empirically shown on 5 datasets in Appendix A.3, not proven for arbitrary attributed graphs.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing the nuclear norm with a hard rank-k constraint preserves cluster quality
    Section 4.1 says 'we enforce the rank of S to be k as a trade-off' but provides no error bound linking the solution of the relaxed Procrustes problem to the original Eq. (7) optimum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectral Subspace Clustering for Attributed Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YYBYMTX6

@misc{pith2026241111074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectral Subspace Clustering for Attributed Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YYBYMTX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11074}
}
read the original abstract

Subspace clustering seeks to identify subspaces that segment a set of n data points into k (k<<n) groups, which has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing data from various domains, especially images and videos. Recently, several studies have demonstrated the great potential of subspace clustering models for partitioning vertices in attributed graphs, referred to as SCAG. However, these works either demand significant computational overhead for constructing the nxn self-expressive matrix, or fail to incorporate graph topology and attribute data into the subspace clustering framework effectively, and thus, compromise result quality. Motivated by this, this paper presents two effective and efficient algorithms, S2CAG and M-S2CAG, for SCAG computation. Particularly, S2CAG obtains superb performance through three major contributions. First, we formulate a new objective function for SCAG with a refined representation model for vertices and two non-trivial constraints. On top of that, an efficient linear-time optimization solver is developed based on our theoretically grounded problem transformation and well-thought-out adaptive strategy. We then conduct an in-depth analysis to disclose the theoretical connection of S2CAG to conductance minimization, which further inspires the design of M-S2CAG that maximizes the modularity. Our extensive experiments, comparing S2CAG and M-S2CAG against 17 competitors over 8 benchmark datasets, exhibit that our solutions outperform all baselines in terms of clustering quality measured against the ground truth while delivering high efficiency

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11074 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Clustering efficiency performance. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Clustering accuracy when varying 𝛼 50 100 125 150 175 200 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 ACC (a) PubMed 1 5 10 20 30 40 0.85 0.9 0.95 ACC (b) DBLP 5 10 20 25 30 35 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 ACC (c) ArXiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Clustering accuracy when varying 𝑇 . 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 ACC (a) PubMed 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 ACC (b) DBLP 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.50 ACC (c) ArXiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Varying 𝛾 in M-S2CAG the three largest datasets PubMed, DBLP, and ArXiv, respectively, by varying each parameter while fixing others as in Section 6.1. Varying 𝛼 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualizations on Wiki. (a) Ground truth (b) S 2CAG (c) SAGSC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualizations on ACM. (a) Ground truth (b) S 2CAG (c) SAGSC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualizations on PubMed. the full SVD of 𝒁𝒁⊤, namely, 𝑼 (𝑘) = 𝑽 (𝑘) is the top-𝑘 left singular vectors of 𝒁, which proves the lemma. □ Proof of Lemma 4.3. Recall that the columns of 𝑼 (𝑘) ∈ R 𝑛×𝑘 are the top-𝑘 left singular vectors of 𝒁. Hence, the columns in 𝑼 (𝑘) ar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Leveraging Large Language Models for Effective Label-free Node Classification in Text-Attributed Graphs

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Locle uses active selection, LLM annotation, and GNN-based label refinement on a rewired graph to improve label-free node classification accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Esra Akbas and Peixiang Zhao. 2017. Attributed Graph Clustering: an Attribute- aware Graph Embedding Approach. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Uri Alon and Eran Yahav. 2021. On the Bottleneck of Graph Neural Networks and its Practical Implications. In International Conference on Learning Represen- tations

    2021

  3. [3]

    Aritra Bhowmick, Mert Kosan, Zexi Huang, Ambuj Singh, and Sourav Medya

  4. [4]

    Filippo Maria Bianchi, Daniele Grattarola, and Cesare Alippi. 2020. Spectral Clustering with Graph Neural Networks for Graph Pooling. In Proceedings of the 37th international conference on Machine learning . ACM, 2729–2738

    2020

  5. [5]

    Deyu Bo, Xiao Wang, Chuan Shi, Meiqi Zhu, Emiao Lu, and Peng Cui. 2020. Structural Deep Clustering Network. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 . Association for Computing Machinery, 1400–1410

    2020

  6. [6]

    Aleksandar Bojchevski and Stephan Günnemann. 2017. Deep Gaussian Embed- ding of Graphs: Unsupervised Inductive Learning via Ranking. arXiv: Machine Learning (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Cécile Bothorel, Juan David Cruz, Matteo Magnani, and Barbora Micenkova

  8. [8]

    David Buterez, Ioana Bica, Ifrah Tariq, Helena Andrés-Terré, and Pietro Liò

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Jinyu Cai, Jicong Fan, Wenzhong Guo, Shiping Wang, Yunhe Zhang, and Zhao Zhang. 2022. Efficient Deep Embedded Subspace Clustering. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2022), 21–30

    2022

  2. [10]

    Jie Chen, Hua Mao, Yongsheng Sang, and Zhang Yi. 2014. Subspace clustering using a symmetric low-rank representation. ArXiv abs/1403.2330 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ming Chen, Zhewei Wei, Zengfeng Huang, Bolin Ding, and Yaliang Li. 2020. Simple and deep graph convolutional networks. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1725–1735

    2020

  4. [12]

    Yi Cheng and Xiuli Ma. 2022. scGAC: a graph attentional architecture for clustering single-cell RNA-seq data. Bioinformatics 38, 8 (2022), 2187–2193

    2022

  5. [13]

    Robinson

    Rene Vidal Chong You, Daniel P. Robinson. 2015. Scalable Sparse Subspace Clustering by Orthogonal Matching Pursuit. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2015), 3918–3927

    2015

  6. [14]

    Petr Chunaev. 2020. Community detection in node-attributed social networks: a survey. Computer Science Review 37 (2020), 100286

    2020

  7. [15]

    David Combe, Christine Largeron, Elöd Egyed-Zsigmond, and Mathias Géry

  8. [16]

    David Combe, Christine Largeron, Mathias Géry, and Elöd Egyed-Zsigmond

  9. [17]

    Ganqu Cui, Jie Zhou, Cheng Yang, and Zhiyuan Liu. 2020. Adaptive Graph Encoder for Attributed Graph Embedding. Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Shifei Ding, Benyu Wu, Ling Ding, Xiao Xu, Lili Guo, Hongmei Liao, and Xindong Wu. 2024. Towards Faster Deep Graph Clustering via Efficient Graph Auto-Encoder. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Xiaowen Dong, Dorina Thanou, Pascal Frossard, and Pierre Vandergheynst

  12. [20]

    Amani HB Eissa, Mohamed E El-Sharkawi, and Hoda MO Mokhtar. 2018. To- wards recommendation using interest-based communities in attributed social networks. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018. 1235–1242

    2018

  13. [21]

    In International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis

    I-Louvain: An Attributed Graph Clustering Method. In International Symposium on Intelligent Data Analysis

  14. [22]

    Ehsan Elhamifar and René Vidal. 2013. Sparse subspace clustering: Algorithm, theory, and applications. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 35, 11 (2013), 2765–2781

    2013

  15. [23]

    Kanawati, and Younès Bennani

    Issam Falih, Nistor Grozavu, R. Kanawati, and Younès Bennani. 2017. ANCA : Attributed Network Clustering Algorithm. InInternational Workshop on Complex Networks & Their Applications

    2017

  16. [24]

    Jicong Fan. 2021. Large-Scale Subspace Clustering via kFactorization. SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (2021), 342–352

    2021

  17. [25]

    Ky Fan. 1949. On a Theorem of Weyl Concerning Eigenvalues of Linear Trans- formations I. PNAS (1949), 652–5

    1949

  18. [26]

    Maryam Fazel. 2002. Matrix rank minimization with applications . Ph. D. Disser- tation. Stanford University

    2002

  19. [27]

    Ehsan Elhamifar and René Vidal. 2012. Sparse Subspace Clustering: Algorithm, Theory, and Applications. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Chakib Fettal, Lazhar Labiod, and Mohamed Nadif. 2023. Scalable Attributed- Graph Subspace Clustering. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hongchang Gao, Feiping Nie, Xuelong Li, and Heng Huang. 2015. Multi-view subspace clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on com- puter vision. 4238–4246

    2015

  22. [30]

    Johannes Gasteiger, Aleksandar Bojchevski, and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Predict then Propagate: Graph Neural Networks meet Personalized PageRank. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  23. [31]

    Stephan Günnemann, Ines Färber, Sebastian Raubach, and Thomas Seidl. 2013. Spectral subspace clustering for graphs with feature vectors. In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining . IEEE, 231–240

    2013

  24. [32]

    Nathan Halko, Per-Gunnar Martinsson, and Joel A. Tropp. 2009. Finding Struc- ture with Randomness: Probabilistic Algorithms for Constructing Approximate Matrix Decompositions. SIAM Rev. 53 (2009), 217–288

    2009

  25. [33]

    Chakib Fettal, Lazhar Labiod, and Mohamed Nadif. 2022. Efficient Graph Con- volution for Joint Node Representation Learning and Clustering. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . Association for Computing Machinery, 289–297

    2022

  26. [34]

    Kaveh Hassani and Amir Hosein Khas Ahmadi. 2020. Contrastive Multi-View Representation Learning on Graphs. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2020

  27. [35]

    Roger A Horn and Charles R Johnson. 2012. Matrix analysis . Cambridge university press

    2012

  28. [36]

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovec. 2020. Open Graph Benchmark: Datasets for Machine Learning on Graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00687 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Guangyu Huo, Yong Zhang, Junbin Gao, Boyue Wang, Yongli Hu, and Baocai Yin

  30. [38]

    Glen Jeh and Jennifer Widom. 2003. Scaling personalized web search. In Pro- ceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web . 271–279

    2003

  31. [39]

    Jie Hao and William Zhu. 2022. Deep graph clustering with enhanced feature representations for community detection.Applied Intelligence (2022), 1336–1349

    2022

  32. [40]

    Zhao Kang, Zhiping Lin, Xiaofeng Zhu, and Wenbo Xu. 2021. Structured Graph Learning for Scalable Subspace Clustering: From Single View to Multiview.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 52 (2021), 8976–8986

    2021

  33. [41]

    Bhagyashri A Kelkar and Sunil F Rodd. 2019. Subspace clustering—A survey. In Data Management, Analytics and Innovation: Proceedings of ICDMAI 2018, Volume 1. Springer, 209–220

    2019

  34. [42]

    J Ketchen and C

    D. J Ketchen and C. L Shook. 1996. The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique. Strategic management journal 17, 6 (1996), 441–458

    1996

  35. [43]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2022. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations. 9 KDD ’25, August 3–7, 2025, Toronto, Canada Lin et al

    2022

  36. [44]

    Xinying Lai, Dingming Wu, Christian S Jensen, and Kezhong Lu. 2023. A Re-evaluation of Deep Learning Methods for Attributed Graph Clustering. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management. 1168–1177

    2023

  37. [45]

    Qimai Li, Zhichao Han, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2018. Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 32

    2018

  38. [46]

    Zhang, Hongdong Li, Mathieu Salzmann, and Ian D

    Pan Ji, T. Zhang, Hongdong Li, Mathieu Salzmann, and Ian D. Reid. 2017. Deep Subspace Clustering Networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems

    2017

  39. [47]

    Yiran Li, Gongyao Guo, Jieming Shi, Renchi Yang, Shiqi Shen, Qing Li, and Jun Luo. 2024. A versatile framework for attributed network clustering via K-nearest neighbor augmentation. The VLDB Journal (2024), 1–31

    2024

  40. [48]

    Ye Li, Chaofeng Sha, Xin Huang, and Yanchun Zhang. 2018. Community De- tection in Attributed Graphs: An Embedding Approach. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2018

  41. [49]

    Yiran Li, Renchi Yang, and Jieming Shi. 2023. Efficient and effective attributed hypergraph clustering via k-nearest neighbor augmentation. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 1, 2 (2023), 1–23

    2023

  42. [50]

    U Liji, Yahui Chai, and Jianrui Chen. 2018. Improved personalized recommen- dation based on user attributes clustering and score matrix filling. Computer Standards & Interfaces 57 (2018), 59–67

    2018

  43. [51]

    Chang Liu, Yuwen Yang, Yue Ding, Hongtao Lu, Wenqing Lin, Ziming Wu, and Wendong Bi. 2024. DAG: Deep Adaptive and Generative K-Free Community Detection on Attributed Graphs. InProceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining

    2024

  44. [52]

    Guangcan Liu, Zhouchen Lin, and Yong Yu. 2010. Robust Subspace Segmentation by Low-Rank Representation. In International Conference on Machine Learning

    2010

  45. [53]

    Yan Li and Xiaoyun Chen. 2024. Attributed graph subspace clustering with residual compensation guided by adaptive dual manifold regularization. Expert Systems with Applications (2024), 124699

    2024

  46. [54]

    Yue Liu, Ke Liang, Jun Xia, Sihang Zhou, Xihong Yang, Xinwang Liu, and Stan Z Li. 2023. Dink-net: Neural clustering on large graphs. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 21794–21812

    2023

  47. [55]

    Yue Liu, Wenxuan Tu, Sihang Zhou, Xinwang Liu, Linxuan Song, Xihong Yang, and En Zhu. 2022. Deep Graph Clustering via Dual Correlation Reduction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 7603–7611

    2022

  48. [56]

    Yue Liu, Jun Xia, Sihang Zhou, Xihong Yang, Ke Liang, Chenchen Fan, Yan Zhuang, Stan Z Li, Xinwang Liu, and Kunlun He. 2022. A Survey of Deep Graph Clustering: Taxonomy, Challenge, Application, and Open Resource. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12875 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    László Lovász. 1993. Random walks on graphs. Combinatorics, Paul erdos is eighty 2, 1-46 (1993), 4

    1993

  50. [58]

    CanYi Lu, Hai Min, ZhongQiu Zhao, Lin Zhu, DeShuang Huang, and Shuicheng Yan. 2012. Robust and Efficient Subspace Segmentation via Least Squares Regression. Computer Vision-ECCV 7578 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    Xiaoqiang Lu, Yulong Wang, and Yuan Yuan. 2013. Graph-Regularized Low- Rank Representation for Destriping of Hyperspectral Images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 51 (2013), 4009–4018

    2013

  52. [60]

    Maoshan Liu, Yan Wang, Jun Sun, and Zhicheng Ji. 2021. Adaptive low-rank kernel block diagonal representation subspace clustering. Applied Intelligence 52 (2021), 2301 – 2316

    2021

  53. [61]

    Xuexiong Luo, Jia Wu, Amin Beheshti, Jian Yang, Xiankun Zhang, Yuan Wang, and Shan Xue. 2022. Comga: Community-aware attributed graph anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 657–665

    2022

  54. [62]

    Yao Ma, Xiaorui Liu, Tong Zhao, Yozen Liu, Jiliang Tang, and Neil Shah. 2020. A Unified View on Graph Neural Networks as Graph Signal Denoising.Proceedings of the International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Zhengrui Ma, Zhao Kang, Guangchun Luo, Ling Tian, and Wenyu Chen. 2020. Towards clustering-friendly representations: Subspace clustering via graph filtering. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on multimedia. 3081– 3089

    2020

  56. [64]

    Costas Mavromatis and G. Karypis. 2021. Graph InfoClust: Maximizing Coarse- Grain Mutual Information in Graphs. In PAKDD

    2021

  57. [65]

    Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton van den Hengel

  58. [66]

    Fanrong Meng, Xiaobin Rui, Zhixiao Wang, Yan Xing, and Longbing Cao. 2018. Coupled Node Similarity Learning for Community Detection in Attributed Networks. Entropy 20 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Ding, and Heng Huang

    Dijun Luo, Feiping Nie, C. Ding, and Heng Huang. 2011. Multi-Subspace Repre- sentation and Discovery. In ECML/PKDD

    2011

  60. [68]

    Jennifer Neville, Micah Adler, and David D. Jensen. 2003. Clustering Relational Data Using Attribute and Link Information

    2003

  61. [69]

    Mark EJ Newman. 2006. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 103, 23 (2006), 8577–8582

    2006

  62. [70]

    Krzysztof Nowicki and Tom A. B. Snijders. 2001. Estimation and Prediction for Stochastic Blockstructures. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 96 (2001), 1077 – 1087

    2001

  63. [71]

    Lance Parsons, Ehtesham Haque, and Huan Liu. 2004. Subspace clustering for high dimensional data: a review. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter (2004), 90–105

    2004

  64. [72]

    Patel and René Vidal

    Vishal M. Patel and René Vidal. 2014. Kernel sparse subspace clustering. 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (2014), 2849–2853

    2014

  65. [73]

    In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’15)

    Image-Based Recommendations on Styles and Substitutes. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’15) . Association for Computing Machinery, 43–52

  66. [74]

    Wentao Qu, Xianchao Xiu, Huangyue Chen, and Lingchen Kong. 2023. A survey on high-dimensional subspace clustering. Mathematics 11, 2 (2023), 436

    2023

  67. [75]

    Waqas Nawaz, Young-Koo Lee, and Sungyoung Lee. 2012. Collaborative Simi- larity Measure for Intra Graph Clustering. In DASFAA Workshops

    2012

  68. [76]

    Yousef Saad. 2011. Numerical methods for large eigenvalue problems: revised edition. SIAM

    2011

  69. [77]

    Schönemann

    Peter H. Schönemann. 1966. A generalized solution of the orthogonal procrustes problem. Psychometrika 31 (1966), 1–10

    1966

  70. [78]

    Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Gallagher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2008. Collective Classification in Network Data. AI Mag. 29, 3 (sep 2008), 93–106

    2008

  71. [79]

    Shi. 2003. Multiclass spectral clustering. In Proceedings ninth IEEE international conference on computer vision . IEEE, 313–319

    2003

  72. [80]

    Jianbo Shi and Jitendra Malik. 2000. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (2000), 888–905

    2000

  73. [81]

    Xi Peng, Jiashi Feng, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Yingjie Lei, and Shuicheng Yan. 2020. Deep subspace clustering. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 31, 12 (2020), 5509–5521

    2020

  74. [82]

    Yao Sui, Guanghui Wang, and Li Zhang. 2019. Sparse subspace clustering via low-rank structure propagation. Pattern Recognition 95 (2019), 261–271

    2019

  75. [83]

    Yiye Ruan, David Fuhry, and Srinivasan Parthasarathy. 2012. Efficient commu- nity detection in large networks using content and links. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (2012)

    2012

  76. [84]

    Anton Tsitsulin, John Palowitch, Bryan Perozzi, and Emmanuel Müller. 2023. Graph clustering with graph neural networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24, 127 (2023), 1–21

    2023

  77. [85]

    Wenxuan Tu, Sihang Zhou, Xinwang Liu, Xifeng Guo, Zhiping Cai, En Zhu, and Jieren Cheng. 2020. Deep Fusion Clustering Network. ArXiv abs/2012.09600 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    René Vidal. 2011. Subspace clustering. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 28, 2 (2011), 52–68

    2011

  79. [87]

    Ulrike Von Luxburg. 2007. A tutorial on spectral clustering. Statistics and computing 17 (2007), 395–416

    2007

  80. [88]

    Chun Wang, Shirui Pan, Ruiqi Hu, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2019. Attributed graph clustering: a deep attentional embedding ap- proach. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 3670–3676

    2019

  81. [89]

    Karsten Steinhaeuser and N. Chawla. 2008. Community Detection in a Large Real-World Social Network

    2008

  82. [90]

    Lai Wei, Zhengwei Chen, Jun Yin, Changming Zhu, Rigui Zhou, and Jin Liu

  83. [91]

    Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. 2008. Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 990–998

    2008

  84. [92]

    Wang Xiao, Ji Houye, Shi Chuan, Wang Bai, Cui Peng, Yu P., and Ye Yanfang

  85. [93]

    Zhiqiang Xu, Yiping Ke, Yi Wang, Hong Cheng, and James Cheng. 2012. A model-based approach to attributed graph clustering. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (2012)

    2012

  86. [94]

    Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Deli Zhao, Maosong Sun, and Edward Y. Chang. 2015. Network representation learning with rich text information. InProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (IJCAI’15). AAAI Press, 2111–2117

    2015

  87. [95]

    Renchi Yang and Jieming Shi. 2024. Efficient High-Quality Clustering for Large Bipartite Graphs. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data (2024), 1–27

    2024

  88. [96]

    Renchi Yang, Jieming Shi, Xiaokui Xiao, Yin Yang, Sourav S Bhowmick, and Juncheng Liu. 2023. PANE: scalable and effective attributed network embedding. The VLDB Journal 32, 6 (2023), 1237–1262

    2023

  89. [97]

    Yu-Xiang Wang, Huan Xu, and Chenlei Leng. 2013. Provable subspace clustering: When LRR meets SSC.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    Renchi Yang, Yidu Wu, Xiaoyang Lin, Qichen Wang, Tsz Nam Chan, and Jiem- ing Shi. 2024. Effective Clustering on Large Attributed Bipartite Graphs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 3782–3793. 10 Spectral Subspace Clusterin...

    2024

  91. [99]

    Tianbao Yang, Rong Jin, Yun Chi, and Shenghuo Zhu. 2014. Combining Link and Content for Community Detection. In Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

    2014

  92. [100]

    Hui Xia, Shu shu Shao, Chun qiang Hu, Rui Zhang, Tie Qiu, and Fu Xiao

  93. [101]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35 (2023), 5203–5215

    Robust Clustering Model Based on Attention Mechanism and Graph Convolutional Network. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35 (2023), 5203–5215

    2023

  94. [102]

    Changqing Zhang, Huazhu Fu, Qinghua Hu, Xiaochun Cao, Yuan Xie, Dacheng Tao, and Dong Xu. 2018. Generalized latent multi-view subspace clustering. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 42, 1 (2018), 86–99

    2018

  95. [103]

    Han Zhao, Xu Yang, Zhenru Wang, Erkun Yang, and Cheng Deng. 2021. Graph Debiased Contrastive Learning with Joint Representation Clustering. In Inter- national Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2021

  96. [104]

    Qiqi Zhao, Huifang Ma, Lijun Guo, and Zhixin Li. 2022. Hierarchical attention network for attributed community detection of joint representation. Neural Computing and Applications 34 (2022), 5587 – 5601

    2022

  97. [105]

    Lei Zhou, Xiao Bai, Dong Wang, Xianglong Liu, Jun Zhou, and Edwin R. Hancock

  98. [106]

    Pan Zhou, Yunqing Hou, and Jiashi Feng. 2018. Deep Adversarial Subspace Clustering. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2018), 1596–1604

    2018

  99. [107]

    Xinchuang Zhou, Lingtao Su, Xiangju Li, Zhongying Zhao, and C. Li. 2022. Community detection based on unsupervised attributed network embedding. Expert Syst. Appl. 213 (2022), 118937

    2022

  100. [108]

    Renchi Yang, Jieming Shi, Yin Yang, Keke Huang, Shiqi Zhang, and Xiaokui Xiao. 2021. Effective and scalable clustering on massive attributed graphs. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 3675–3687

    2021

  101. [109]

    Jiong Zhu, Yujun Yan, Lingxiao Zhao, Mark Heimann, Leman Akoglu, and Danai Koutra. 2020. Beyond homophily in graph neural networks: Current limitations and effective designs. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 7793–7804

    2020

  102. [110]

    Meiqi Zhu, Xiao Wang, Chuan Shi, Houye Ji, and Peng Cui. 2021. Interpret- ing and Unifying Graph Neural Networks with An Optimization Framework. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (2021). A ALGORITHMIC DETAILS A.1 PowerMethod Algo. 3 displays the pseudo-code of PowerMethod...

    2021

  103. [111]

    Xihong Yang, Yue Liu, Sihang Zhou, Siwei Wang, Wenxuan Tu, Qun Zheng, Xinwang Liu, Liming Fang, and En Zhu. 2023. Cluster-guided Contrastive Graph Clustering Network. ArXiv abs/2301.01098 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Hugo Zanghi, Stevenn Volant, and Christophe Ambroise. 2009. Clustering based on random graph model embedding vertex features. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 31 (2009), 830–836

    2009

  105. [117]

    In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    Latent Distribution Preserving Deep Subspace Clustering. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

  106. [120]

    Hao Zhu and Piotr Koniusz. 2021. Simple Spectral Graph Convolution. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  107. [2012]

    Combining Relations and Text in Scientific Network Clustering.IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (2012), 1248–1253

    2012

  108. [2015]

    Network Science 3, 3 (2015), 408–444

    Clustering attributed graphs: models, measures and methods. Network Science 3, 3 (2015), 408–444

    2015

  109. [2016]

    IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 64, 23 (2016), 6160–6173

    Learning Laplacian matrix in smooth graph signal representations. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 64, 23 (2016), 6160–6173

    2016

  110. [2019]

    WWW (2019)

    Heterogeneous Graph Attention Network. WWW (2019)

    2019

  111. [2021]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35 (2021), 3471–3483

    CaEGCN: Cross-Attention Fusion Based Enhanced Graph Convolutional Network for Clustering. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35 (2021), 3471–3483

    2021

  112. [2022]

    Bioinformatics 38, 5 (2022), 1277–1286

    CellVGAE: an unsupervised scRNA-seq analysis workflow with graph attention networks. Bioinformatics 38, 5 (2022), 1277–1286

    2022

  113. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Adaptive graph convolutional subspace clustering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 6262–6271

  114. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol

    DGCLUSTER: A Neural Framework for Attributed Graph Clustering via Modularity Maximization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 11069–11077

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.