Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Modeling Event Propagation via Graph Biased Temporal Point Process

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that separating direct node influence from historical influence in a temporal point process improves propagation prediction on real-world networks.

desk verdict The graph-bias idea is a plausible incremental extension of RMTPP, but the evaluation leaks test-fold transitions into the graph embeddings, so the reported gains are not trustworthy as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01623 v2 pith:ZPAOOBI4 submitted 2019-08-05 cs.SI cs.LG

Weichang Wu , Huanxi Liu , Xiaohu Zhang , Yu Liu , Hongyuan Zha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.LG
keywords temporalpointprocesseventpropagationgraphrepresentationlearningnodeembeddingrecurrentneuralnetworkpredictionsocialanalysismemetracking
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 proposes a graph-biased temporal point process (GBTPP) for modeling how events propagate through a network, such as retweets on Twitter or memes between websites. It separates the direct influence of the currently reached node, captured by a graph bias term built from node embeddings, from the indirect influence of the entire propagation history, modeled by a recurrent neural network. Using a synthetic Hawkes dataset, the Higgs Twitter dataset, and the MemeTracker dataset, the paper claims GBTPP improves both next-node prediction accuracy and propagation-time RMSE over the recurrent marked temporal point process (RMTPP) baseline, with larger gains on real-world data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the graph bias term $b(h_{n-1}, y_n, y_k) = \mathrm{ReLU}(U^h_{n,:}h_{n-1})\, p(y_n, y_k)$, where $p(y_n, y_k) = \sigma(y_n^{s\top} y_k^e)$ is the first-order proximity learned from node embeddings. The embeddings are obtained by minimizing the KL divergence between this embedding-based proximity and an empirical adjacency matrix $A_{i,j} = N_{ij}/N_{\max}$ built from normalized propagation counts, as in Eq.\ (2). The ReLU factor lets the history modulate how strongly the direct edge influences the next node, and the node embedding vectors are also injected into the recurrent history embedding of Eq.\ (3) as side information.

What would settle it

Re-estimate the adjacency matrix $A_{i,j}$ and node embeddings using only training sequences in each 10-fold split, then retrain GBTPP and compare node accuracy and time RMSE against RMTPP. If the advantage shrinks or reverses, the reported gains came from test-fold information entering the graph bias term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GBTPP predicts the next propagation node $v_{n+1}$ and time $t_n$ given history $H_{n-1}$ and current node $v_n$. The probability of each candidate node $k$ is a softmax over $V^h_{k,:}h_{n-1} + b(h_{n-1}, y_n, y_k) + b^h_k$, where the graph bias term $b(h_{n-1}, y_n, y_k) = \mathrm{ReLU}(U^h_{n,:}h_{n-1})\, p(y_n, y_k)$ multiplies a history-dependent scale factor by the first-order proximity between the current node and the candidate. The conditional intensity in Eq.\ (8) likewise adds an explicit direct-influence term $v_y^\top y_n$ to the history term. The full model is trained by maximizing the joint log-likelihood of propagation node and time via backpropagation through time, and the paper reports that this explicit decomposition of direct and indirect influence yields better accuracy and lower RMSE than RMTPP, especially on Higgs and MemeTracker data.

Load-bearing premise

The graph representation is learned from the complete observed dataset, including test-fold transition counts, before the cross-validation splits are made; the central performance claim collapses if the adjacency matrix must be estimated from training folds only.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, propagation modeling in social and information networks can be improved by explicitly encoding graph structure into neural temporal point processes.
  • The direct-versus-indirect decomposition offers a modular design: any RNN-based point process can be augmented with a pre-learned graph bias without changing its recurrent core.
  • The history-dependent scale factor $\mathrm{ReLU}(U^h_{n,:}h_{n-1})$ effectively gives each static edge a time-varying strength, which may help in cascades where influence wanes or surges.
  • The top-$K$ prediction formulation positions the model as a recommender that can suggest likely next nodes and their propagation times.
  • The framework extends naturally to dynamic graphs and to event sequences with richer semantic side information, as the paper itself points to as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A critical control study would re-estimate the adjacency matrix and node embeddings using only training-fold sequences in each 10-fold split; the reported advantage over RMTPP may shrink if the graph bias currently encodes test-fold transition counts.
  • The same bias mechanism could be combined with continuous-time graph neural networks or temporal graph embeddings to handle evolving network structure, going beyond the static-graph setting.
  • The exponential kernel assumption in the intensity function is a parametric choice; replacing it with a learned kernel might further improve time prediction on irregular propagation patterns.
  • The first-order proximity bias only uses direct edges; extending the bias to second-order proximity could capture the paper's motivating example of $V_2 \to V_4 \to V_5$ without relying solely on the RNN history.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Graph Biased Temporal Point Process (GBTPP) for modeling event propagation in a graph. The method first learns node embeddings by reconstructing an adjacency matrix A_{ij}=N_{ij}/N_{max} estimated from observed propagation sequences, then feeds these embeddings into a recurrent marked temporal point process. The next-node probability adds a graph bias term p(y_n,y_k) modulated by a history-dependent scale, and the time intensity adds a direct-influence term v_y^T y_n. The authors evaluate on a synthetic Hawkes dataset, the Higgs Twitter dataset, and MemeTracker, comparing against RMTPP, Markov chains, point-process baselines, and an NRPP ablation, and report improved accuracy and RMSE.

Significance. If the reported evaluation were sound, the paper would make a useful contribution by separating direct graph influence from indirect history influence in neural temporal point processes, and the NRPP ablation is a sensible control for isolating the graph bias term. The experimental setup covers a synthetic and two real datasets, which is appropriate for the claim. However, the graph representation step appears to use test-fold information, and Eq. (9) is internally inconsistent, so the empirical claims are not currently supported. The underlying modeling idea remains plausible and could be of interest after a corrected within-fold evaluation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III-A / IV-B] The graph representation is learned from the full dataset before the 10-fold split. In Section III-A, A_{ij}=N_{ij}/N_{max} is computed from all observed propagation sequences C, and the node embeddings y_i are fitted to A via Eq. (2). Section IV-B then partitions C into folds without stating that A or the embeddings are re-estimated inside each training fold; for MemeTracker this is explicit ('Firstly, the adjacent matrix is estimated by A_{ij}=N_{ij}/N_{max}... Given adjacent matrix A, the graph embedding {y_k} is learned... then the GBTPP model is trained'), and the Higgs description follows the same order. Because Eq. (6) inserts p(y_n,y_k) into the next-node probability, the graph bias term can act as a lookup over transition counts that include test-fold events. This gives GBTPP an information advantage that RMTPP and NRPP do not have and invalidates the comparisons in Table I and Fig. 6. Please re-estimate A and the node embeddings separately inside each training fold, or use a graph source that is independent of the propagation labels, and report the results.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) is not the correct density for the intensity in Eq. (8). Integrating over [t_{n-1}, t] gives a lower-limit term (1/w) exp(v_h^T h_{n-1} + v_y^T y_n + b_t), but Eq. (9) writes (1/w) exp(v_t^T h_{n-1} + b_t), omitting the direct-influence term v_y^T y_n; the first exponent also uses v_t^T where Eq. (8) uses v_h^T. As written the density is not normalized, so the time log-likelihood in Eq. (12) and the reported time RMSE are not trustworthy. Please correct the expression, harmonize the notation, and re-run the time-prediction experiments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B] The experimental section does not report the embedding dimension d, hidden state dimension H, learning rate, BPTT length b, or number of training epochs; these details are needed to reproduce the results.
  2. [Section IV-C] No error bars are shown in the top-K curves of Fig. 6, and no significance tests accompany Table I; given the small differences on the synthetic accuracy (e.g., 46.82 vs 47.26 with overlapping standard deviations), 'better performance' should be qualified.
  3. [Section III-A] Eq. (2) is described as KL-divergence minimization, but the expression is a weighted cross-entropy; the relationship to the empirical distribution \hat{p}^{(1)} should be clarified.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, such as 'defining the the grain' in Section II-A, and inconsistent use of v_t and v_h in Section III-B; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The graph-bias term is fitted to the full dataset before the 10-fold split, so test-fold transitions are encoded in the prediction term; the central empirical claim is partially forced.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-A Eq.2; Section III-B Eqs.6-7; Section IV-B (Meme dataset, cross-validation)]
    "From event propagation sequences C in weighted directed graph G, we have the empirical estimation of the adjacent matrix A, in which A_{i,j} is the empirical estimation for the weight of edge e_{ij} computed by the normalized propagation number from v_i to v_j as A_{i,j} = N_{ij}/N_{max}. ... For each node v_i, we can learn the corresponding node embedding vector y_i = {y^s_i, y^e_i} by Eq.2, indicating the first order proximity by Eq.1. ..."

    The paper states the cross-validation setup as: 'All the experimental results are given by 10-fold cross validation... we consider a sequence as one complete and independent sample when dividing the whole dataset into 10 subsets.' The adjacency matrix A and the node embeddings {y_k} are estimated once from the full collection C before this split (Meme paragraph: 'Firstly, the adjacent matrix is estimated by A_{ij}=N_{ij}/N_{max}... Given adjacent matrix A_{ij}, the graph embedding {y_k} is learned... then the GBTPP model is trained'), with no per-fold re-estimation described. Therefore p(y_n,y_k) entering Eqs.6-7 is a fitted function of all observed transition counts, including the held-out fold's transitions.

full rationale

The core derivation of GBTPP (equations 1-12) is self-contained and does not rest on a self-citation chain; the model equations are internally consistent as a parametric proposal. The circularity is in the evaluation of the central empirical claim, not in the mathematical derivation. The graph bias term in Eq.6 is trained, via Eq.2, to reconstruct the empirical adjacency matrix A_{ij}=N_{ij}/N_{max}, which is computed from all propagation sequences before the dataset is partitioned into 10 folds. Because the 10-fold split (Section IV-B) only partitions sequences after the graph embedding is learned, the bias term p(y_n,y_k) encodes transition counts that include test-fold examples. At test time, a transition that appears anywhere in the full dataset receives an inflated score in Eq.7, which is a direct and quotable reduction of the 'prediction' to the fitted input. This is a classic fitted-input-called-prediction pattern and partially explains the reported advantage over RMTPP. There is also a separate correctness concern in Eq.9: after integrating the intensity of Eq.8, the lower-limit term lacks the v_y^T y_n contribution, so the density is not correctly normalized; this affects the time-likelihood component and RMSE results, but it is a correctness issue rather than circularity. The NRPP ablation provides some internal control, and no load-bearing self-citation was found, but the main headline result is not trustworthy as reported because the graph bias term is fit to the test folds.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the graph bias is a parametric term built from fitted node embeddings. The main data-derived quantity is the adjacency matrix, which is estimated from the same event sequences used for evaluation.

free parameters (2)
  • node embedding vectors y_v = not reported; learned via Eq.2
    Learned by minimizing edge reconstruction loss to approximate the empirical adjacency matrix; used directly in the graph bias term Eq.6.
  • neural TPP parameters (Wem, Wv, Wt, Wy, Wh, Vh, U, vh, vy, wt, bt) = not reported
    Learned by maximizing the log-likelihood in Eq.12; standard trainable weights rather than hand-set constants.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The propagation process is a marked temporal point process with intensity of the form in Eq.8.
    Central model assumption; all likelihoods derive from it.
  • domain assumption First-order proximity between nodes, reconstructed from event propagation counts, captures the direct influence relevant for future propagation.
    The graph bias term p(y_n,y_k) is built on this assumption (Section III-B, Eq.6).
  • domain assumption The observed propagation sequences provide a reliable estimate of the underlying graph's adjacency matrix.
    A_ij = N_ij/N_max is treated as ground-truth graph structure (Section III-A).
  • domain assumption RNN hidden state h_{n-1} sufficiently summarizes propagation history.
    Standard in RMTPP; used in Eq.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Event Propagation via Graph Biased Temporal Point Process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPAOOBI4

@misc{pith2026190801623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Event Propagation via Graph Biased Temporal Point Process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPAOOBI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01623}
}
read the original abstract

Temporal point process is widely used for sequential data modeling. In this paper, we focus on the problem of modeling sequential event propagation in graph, such as retweeting by social network users, news transmitting between websites, etc. Given a collection of event propagation sequences, conventional point process model consider only the event history, i.e. embed event history into a vector, not the latent graph structure. We propose a Graph Biased Temporal Point Process (GBTPP) leveraging the structural information from graph representation learning, where the direct influence between nodes and indirect influence from event history is modeled respectively. Moreover, the learned node embedding vector is also integrated into the embedded event history as side information. Experiments on a synthetic dataset and two real-world datasets show the efficacy of our model compared to conventional methods and state-of-the-art.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of event propagation in a sample graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conventional Temporal Point Process (TPP): Current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Architecture for Graph Biased Temporal Point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Specifically, we specify the proposed model as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration for the Graph Biased Temporal Point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top-5 node prediction accuracy on Higgs dataset and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Begleiter, R

    R. Begleiter, R. El-Yaniv, and G. Yona. On prediction using variable order markov models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 22:385–421, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Bordes, S

    A. Bordes, S. Chopra, and J. Weston. Question answering with subgraph embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 615–620, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

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

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Daley and D

    D. Daley and D. Vere-Jones. An introduction to the theory of point processes: volume II: general theory and structure . Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    De Domenico, A

    M. De Domenico, A. Lima, P. Mougel, and M. Musolesi. The anatomy of a scientific rumor. Scientific reports, 3:2980, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    N. Du, H. Dai, R. Trivedi, U. Upadhyay, M. Gomez-Rodriguez, and L. Song. Recurrent marked temporal point processes: Embedding event history to vector. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 1555–1564. ACM, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Embrechts, T

    P. Embrechts, T. Liniger, and L. Lin. Multivariate hawkes processes: an application to financial data. Journal of Applied Probability , 2011

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Ertekin, C

    S. Ertekin, C. Rudin, and T. H. McCormick. Reactive point processes: A new approach to predicting power failures in underground electrical systems. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 9(1):122–144, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    T. R. Etherington and G. L. Perry. Using point process intensity to establish the spatio-temporal grain of continuous landscape tessellations and graphs. Landscape ecology, 27(8):1083–1090, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    J. Feng, M. Huang, Y . Yang, et al. Gake: graph aware knowledge embedding. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, pages 641– 651, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    E. Fox, M. Short, F. Schoenberg, K. Coronges, and A. Bertozzi. Modeling e-mail networks and inferring leadership using self-exciting point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    A. G. Hawkes. Point spectra of some mutually exciting point processes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 1971

    1971

  5. [13]

    A. G. Hawkes. Spectra of some self-exciting and mutually exciting point processes. Biometrika, 1971

    1971

  6. [14]

    Janssen and N

    J. Janssen and N. Limnios. Semi-Markov models and applications . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    S. K. Karmaker Santu, L. Li, D. H. Park, Y . Chang, and C. Zhai. Modeling the influence of popular trending events on user search behavior. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pages 535–544. International World Wide Web Conferences S...

    2017

  8. [16]

    J. F. C. Kingman. Poisson processes. Wiley Online Library, 1993

    1993

  9. [17]

    Leskovec, L

    J. Leskovec, L. Backstrom, and J. Kleinberg. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 497–506. ACM, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Li and H

    L. Li and H. Zha. Dyadic event attribution in social networks with mixtures of hawkes processes. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management , pages 1667–1672. ACM, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Li and H

    L. Li and H. Zha. Learning parametric models for social infectivity in multi-dimensional hawkes processes. In Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    L. Liu, W. K. Cheung, X. Li, and L. Liao. Aligning users across social networks using network embedding. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9-15 July 2016 , pages 1774–1780, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    T. Man, H. Shen, S. Liu, X. Jin, and X. Cheng. Predict anchor links across social networks via an embedding approach. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9-15 July 2016 , pages 1823–1829, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Mei and J

    H. Mei and J. M. Eisner. The neural hawkes process: A neurally self-modulating multivariate point process. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 6754–6764, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Y . Ogata. Statistical models for earthquake occurrences and residual analysis for point processes. Journal of the American Statistical association, 83(401):9–27, 1988

    1988

  16. [24]

    Y . Ogata. Space-time point-process models for earthquake occurrences. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics , 50(2):379–402, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    Pemantle

    R. Pemantle. A survey of random processes with reinforcement. Probability Survey, 4(0):1–79, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Reinhart et al

    A. Reinhart et al. A review of self-exciting spatio-temporal point processes and their applications. Statistical Science , 33(3):299–318, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    M. C. Seiler and F. A. Seiler. Numerical recipes in c: the art of scientific computing. Risk Analysis, 9(3):415–416, 1989

    1989

  20. [28]

    Singer, I

    U. Singer, I. Guy, and K. Radinsky. Node embedding over temporal graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.08889 , 2019

    1903 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Stomakhin, M

    A. Stomakhin, M. Short, and A. Bertozzi. Reconstruction of missing data in social networks based on temporal patterns of interactions. Inverse Problems, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    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, WWW 2015, Florence, Italy, May 18-22, 2015 , pages 1067–1077, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    D. Wang, C. Song, and A. Barab ´asi. Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342(6154):127–132, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Y . Wang, H. Shen, S. Liu, J. Gao, and X. Cheng. Cascade dynamics modeling with attention-based recurrent neural network. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017 , pages...

    2017

  25. [33]

    X. Wei, L. Xu, B. Cao, and P. S. Yu. Cross view link prediction by learning noise-resilient representation consensus. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web , pages 1611–1619. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    W. Wu, J. Yan, X. Yang, and H. Zha. Decoupled learning for factorial marked temporal point processes. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’18, pages 2516–2525, New York, NY , USA, 2018. ACM

    2018

  27. [35]

    S. Xiao, M. Farajtabar, X. Ye, J. Yan, L. Song, and H. Zha. Wasserstein learning of deep generative point process models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3247–3257, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    S. Xiao, J. Yan, X. Yang, H. Zha, and S. M. Chu. Modeling the intensity function of point process via recurrent neural networks. In Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    H. Xu, W. Wu, S. Nemati, and H. Zha. Patient flow prediction via discriminative learning of mutually-correcting processes. IEEE transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 29(1):157–171, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    J. Yan, Y . Wang, K. Zhou, J. Huang, C. Tian, H. Zha, and W. Dong. Towards effective prioritizing water pipe replacement and rehabilitation. In Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    J. Yan, S. Xiao, C. Li, B. Jin, X. Wang, B. Ke, X. Yang, and H. Zha. Modeling contagious merger and acquisition via point processes with a profile regression prior. In IJCAI, pages 2690–2696, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    J. Yan, C. Zhang, H. Zha, M. Gong, C. Sun, J. Huang, S. Chu, and X. Yang. On machine learning towards predictive sales pipeline analytics. In Twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Zammit-Mangion, M

    A. Zammit-Mangion, M. Dewar, V . Kadirkamanathan, and G. San- guinetti. Point process modelling of the afghan war diary. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109(31):12414–12419, 2012

    2012

  34. [42]

    Zhang, K

    C. Zhang, K. Zhang, Q. Yuan, H. Peng, Y . Zheng, T. Hanratty, S. Wang, and J. Han. Regions, periods, activities: Uncovering urban dynamics via cross-modal representation learning. In Proceedings of the 26th Inter- national Conference on World Wide Web , pages 361–370. Internat...

    2017

  35. [43]

    Zhang and H

    Q. Zhang and H. Wang. Not all links are created equal: An adaptive embedding approach for social personalized ranking. In Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2016, Pisa, Italy, July 17- 21, 2016...

    2016

  36. [44]

    K. Zhou, H. Zha, and L. Song. Learning social infectivity in sparse low- rank networks using multi-dimensional hawkes processes. In AISTATS, 2013

    2013

  37. [45]

    Zhu and Y

    S. Zhu and Y . Xie. Crime linkage detection by spatial-temporal-textual point processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.00440 , 2019. Weichang Wu received the B.S. degree in electronic engineering from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wu Han, China, in 2013. He is cur...

    1902 arXiv

Pith tools

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