Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Identifying Key Nodes for the Influence Spread using a Machine Learning Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 clustering simulated influence values into Smart Bins gives machine learning models a more accurate and stable way to identify key spreaders than fixed top-5% binning.

desk verdict Competent engineering with two new ideas, but the Smart Bins claim rests on a confounded evaluation; needs an external benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01949 v1 pith:ZWA6ETHD submitted 2024-12-02 cs.SI cs.AI

Mateusz Stolarski , Adam Piróg , Piotr Bródka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.AI
keywords socialnetworksnodeclassificationunsupervisedlearninginfluencespreadIndependentCascademodelkeyidentificationmachinecentralitymeasures
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 is trying to establish that how you turn simulated influence values into training labels matters as much as the classifier itself. It introduces Smart Bins, a KMeans-based discretization of nodes' mean influence under the Independent Cascade model, and argues this beats the arbitrary top-5% split used in earlier work. The payoff is that a machine learning model trained on cheap centrality features can reproduce the expensive simulation labels nearly perfectly on unseen nodes of the same network. The paper also claims the framework can predict not just how far influence spreads, but when it peaks and how large the peak is. If true, this would make key-node identification faster, cheaper, and more operationally useful for tasks like viral marketing and epidemic planning.

What carries the argument

Smart Bins is the central object: KMeans clustering applied to the one-dimensional array of nodes' mean simulated influence values, where each resulting cluster becomes a labeled class and the number of clusters is adjusted so every class has enough members. This is paired with a feature embedding of fourteen centrality measures—out-degree, average neighbour degree, local reaching, betweenness, PageRank, and others—plus the activation probability used in the diffusion model, all standardized and fed into a LightGBM classifier. The KMeans step carries the paper's main novelty, while the centrality features keep the inference cheap compared with rerunning simulations.

What would settle it

Run both labeling schemes on the same networks, then from each scheme's top class select a fixed-size seed set and measure the actual Independent Cascade spread those seeds produce; if the top-5% seeds match or exceed Smart Bins seeds in realized spread, the claimed advantage is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the process of obtaining training labels—not just the choice of machine learning algorithm—determines how well influential nodes can be identified. It introduces Smart Bins, which applies KMeans clustering to the distribution of nodes' average simulated influence values, with the number of bins chosen so each class has enough members, and replaces the arbitrary top-5% threshold used in prior work. Using these labels, a LightGBM classifier trained on fourteen centrality features plus the activation threshold reproduces the influence-range classes of expensive simulations almost perfectly on held-out nodes, and it can also predict the size of the peak cascade and the time required to reach that peak. Cross-network experiments show that models generalize best when training and test networks belong to the same family—citation to citation or social to social—suggesting that network type matters more than network size.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's main comparison assumes that macro-F1 scores from different labelings (Smart Bins vs. fixed top-5%) measure the same quality, even though the labels differ in number, balance, and threshold positions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Machine learning classifiers can reproduce the Smart Bins labels of expensive Independent Cascade simulations almost perfectly on held-out nodes of the same network.
  • The framework predicts not only total influence range but also peak cascade size and time to peak, giving operational forecasts for viral marketing and epidemic response.
  • Cross-network generalization works best within the same network family, so a smaller but topologically similar training network can outperform a larger but different one.
  • Smart Bins produces more stable results across repeated trials than an arbitrary top-5% fixed binning, because the bins adapt to the actual distribution of influence values.
  • Out-degree, average neighbour degree, and local reaching are the most informative centrality features for predicting influence spread.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Smart Bins fits the labels to the same simulation values it labels, part of the reported F1 gain may reflect label construction rather than better key-node identification; a direct comparison of seed-set influence under a fixed budget would test this.
  • The paper evaluates classification quality with macro-F1, but a ranking-based evaluation (e.g., how well the top predicted class matches the top spreaders by quantile) might change the conclusions about generalization.
  • The result that network family matters more than size suggests that a network-similarity measure could be used to select small training networks for large targets, but the paper does not test such a measure.
  • The framework's reliance on KMeans implies that networks with heavily skewed influence distributions may need very different bin counts, so an adaptive rule for choosing the number of bins would be a natural extension.
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 a machine learning framework for identifying key nodes in complex networks under the Independent Cascade model. The main contribution is 'Smart Bins', a KMeans-based discretization of simulated influence range values that produces class labels for supervised node classification. The paper also introduces two new prediction targets—influence peak and peak time—and evaluates a LightGBM classifier on four real-world networks (Citeseer, Pubmed, Facebook, Github). The authors report near-perfect performance in a within-network train/test split, moderate cross-network generalization, and claim that Smart Bins significantly outperforms the fixed top-5% binning approach used in prior work.

Significance. If fully supported, the framework would offer a fast and accurate way to estimate node influence classes and additional spreading characteristics without rerunning expensive IC simulations. The paper has concrete strengths: it provides a reproducible pipeline (code on GitHub), uses multiple real-world networks of different types and sizes, and includes a broad feature importance analysis with Shapley values. The proposed new tasks (influence peak, peak time) are a useful extension of the key-node identification problem. However, the central comparison that Smart Bins 'significantly improves the inference process' is currently not convincing: the evaluation relies on macro-F1 computed on labels that Smart Bins itself constructs, and the comparison to the fixed top-5% baseline is confounded. The cross-network generalization results are also difficult to interpret because class labels are not aligned across networks.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Figure 6] The comparison between Smart Bins and the fixed top-5% binning is not a valid head-to-head because the two schemes differ simultaneously in label cardinality (Smart Bins uses 2–5 classes, the baseline is binary), class balance, and threshold positions. Macro-F1 is sensitive to all three; a higher value for Smart Bins may simply reflect that the KMeans-induced labels are easier to predict, not that the identified key nodes are better. The paper's central claim of 'higher and more stable results' is therefore not established. Please add an external evaluation metric that directly measures key-node identification quality, such as the average IC spread of the top-k predicted seeds, top-k precision or recall against the ground-truth top spreaders, or NDCG against the true influence range. The comparison should also be made under matched conditions—for example, the same number of classes or the same class balance.
  2. [Section 3.2] KMeans is fit on the influence values of all nodes, including the held-out test nodes, before the train/test split. Although the classifier does not observe test labels in training, the label definition itself is derived from the full data distribution. This makes the classification task easier than a realistic setting where label thresholds must be inferred from the training set only (or from a validation set). Please either derive label boundaries using only training data and then apply them to test nodes, or justify the current procedure and discuss its effect on the reported near-perfect F1 scores.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figure 5] The cross-network generalization results are reported with class labels that are not aligned across networks, because KMeans thresholds are fit per network. The same label index (e.g., 3) represents different influence ranges in different networks. This makes the reported F1 scores and the conclusion that 'the family of the network matters more than its size' difficult to interpret, since the classifier is effectively predicting different target definitions on the training and test networks. Please align labels across networks—for instance, by fitting thresholds on the training network and applying them to the test network, or by using quantile-based thresholds that are defined consistently—and re-run the generalization experiments.
  4. [Section 4.3] The claim that Smart Bins provide 'significantly more stable results' is not supported by any statistical test or confidence interval. Figure 6 appears to show box plots, but the text does not report the number of repeated trials, the variance, or any significance test. Please report the distribution of the results across runs and test whether the difference in stability is statistically significant (e.g., with a paired test across the same node splits).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The KMeans formula as written, sum over i of min over mu_j of ||x_i - mu_j||_2, is not the standard KMeans objective; the within-cluster sum of squares should be a double sum over clusters and their members, and the squared norm is usually used. Please rewrite the objective correctly.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'we assigned each cluster member a centroid (cluster centre) value' is unclear: presumably the authors assign a cluster label, not the centroid value itself. Please rephrase.
  3. [Table 1] The table reports the percentage of nodes whose influence range values fall into the 'top bin' for 2–5 KMeans bins, but it is not stated how the top bin is defined—by the highest centroid, or by the bin containing the maximum influence range? Please clarify.
  4. [Section 3.1] The activation probability thresholds are given as sets (0.2, 0.3, 0.4 for citation networks; 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 for social networks), but the paper does not state whether the reported results are averaged over these thresholds or reported per threshold. Please clarify the aggregation.
  5. [Figure 3] The y-axis label is missing; it is presumably the macro-F1 score. Please add axis labels to all figures that lack them.
  6. [Section 5, Discussion] The statement that the SIR model with recovery rate 1.0 'effectively reduces to the IC model' is correct, but a citation or a brief derivation would help the reader, especially since this equivalence is used to justify the choice of the IC model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Smart Bins advantage is measured by macro-F1 on labels that Smart Bins itself constructs; the headline comparison is confounded by label cardinality, class balance, and separability.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 (Smart Bins construction), Section 4 (F1 macro metric), Section 4.3 / Figure 6 (comparison)]
    "We ran the KMeans algorithm on the results of the spreading model (all node influence ranges) to achieve this effect ... The K set is determined based on the number of elements in the bins for the examined K. This approach helps to avoid a situation where the granularity is too coarse, resulting in some labels having no elements ... We discretized all our networks using both methods (clustering discretization and arbitrary choice of the top 5% of the nodes like [8,10]) and compared the results of the classification of downstream nodes’ influence."

    The central claim that Smart Bins 'significantly improves the inference process' is evaluated with macro-F1 on labels that Smart Bins itself manufactures. KMeans is fit to the same ground-truth influence values that are then discretized into labels, and the number of bins is chosen so that every class has enough members. The competing baseline is a binary top-5% split. The two labeling schemes thus differ simultaneously in class count, class balance, and threshold placement, and macro-F1 is sensitive to all three. A higher macro-F1 therefore partly reports that Smart Bins labels are easier to predict, not that the identified key nodes are more influential. No external key-node benchmark, such as the actual IC spread of selected seed sets or top-k ranking quality, is used.

full rationale

The paper's near-perfect held-out classification results and cross-network generalization experiments are legitimate machine-learning findings; however, the paper's main contribution, the claimed advantage of Smart Bins over fixed binning, is established only by comparing macro-F1 values computed on labels that Smart Bins itself generates. Because KMeans is fit on the same ground-truth influence values used for labeling, and because the number of bins is selected to avoid empty classes, the Smart Bins labeling is constructed to be relatively balanced and separable, which is exactly what macro-F1 rewards over a highly imbalanced binary top-5% split. This makes the headline result partially circular: the measured 'improvement' is, at least in part, an artifact of the labeling scheme rather than evidence of better key-node identification. No external validation against seed-set influence or ranking quality is provided. The paper does not rely on load-bearing self-citations; the only self-citation (reference 41) is not central to the argument. The score is 6 rather than higher because the ML classification and generalization results have independent content, but the main comparative claim reduces substantially to fitting the outputs of the proposed labeling procedure.

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

The framework depends on the IC model as ground truth, on a manually chosen set of activation probabilities, on KMeans cluster labels as ground truth for key nodes, and on macro-F1 as the comparison metric. None of these is externally validated against real spreading data or an independent influence-maximization benchmark. The free parameters are the number of bins K, the unspecified minimum class size N, the IC thresholds, and the number of simulation runs. These choices materially affect the labels and the reported performance.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of Smart Bins K = 2 to 5, selected per network and capped at 5
    Controls label granularity; the accept/reject condition 'More Than N Members of Each Class?' depends on an unspecified N.
  • Minimum class size N = unspecified
    Used in the accept/reject step for K (Figure 1); the paper does not state its value.
  • IC activation probability thresholds = 0.2/0.3/0.4 for citation networks; 0.1/0.15/0.2 for social networks
    Chosen manually due to network type differences; affects ground truth labels and is added as an embedding feature.
  • Number of IC simulations per node = 100
    Monte Carlo repetitions used to average influence estimates; affects label stability and computational cost.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Independent Cascade model is an appropriate ground-truth model for influence spread and key node identification.
    Section 3.1 justifies IC by similarity to SIR with recovery rate 1; no external validation against real spreading data is provided.
  • domain assumption The 14 centrality measures plus activation probability are a sufficient feature representation to predict IC influence classes.
    Section 3.3 selects features; the near-perfect within-network results are used as evidence, but no test of sufficiency against other feature sets is given.
  • ad hoc to paper KMeans clusters of 1D influence range values define meaningful key-node classes (Smart Bins).
    Section 3.2: the ground-truth labels are the KMeans cluster assignments; their semantic validity as 'key nodes' is assumed, not externally benchmarked.
  • ad hoc to paper Macro-F1 on class labels induced by different discretization methods is a fair and valid comparison metric.
    Section 4.3 compares Smart Bins to fixed top-5% bins using macro-F1 without accounting for different label cardinality and class balance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Key Nodes for the Influence Spread using a Machine Learning Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWA6ETHD

@misc{pith2026241201949,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Key Nodes for the Influence Spread using a Machine Learning Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWA6ETHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01949}
}
read the original abstract

The identification of key nodes in complex networks is an important topic in many network science areas. It is vital to a variety of real-world applications, including viral marketing, epidemic spreading and influence maximization. In recent years, machine learning algorithms have proven to outperform the conventional, centrality-based methods in accuracy and consistency, but this approach still requires further refinement. What information about the influencers can be extracted from the network? How can we precisely obtain the labels required for training? Can these models generalize well? In this paper, we answer these questions by presenting an enhanced machine learning-based framework for the influence spread problem. We focus on identifying key nodes for the Independent Cascade model, which is a popular reference method. Our main contribution is an improved process of obtaining the labels required for training by introducing 'Smart Bins' and proving their advantage over known methods. Next, we show that our methodology allows ML models to not only predict the influence of a given node, but to also determine other characteristics of the spreading process-which is another novelty to the relevant literature. Finally, we extensively test our framework and its ability to generalize beyond complex networks of different types and sizes, gaining important insight into the properties of these methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01949 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Smart bins—clustering discretization on the Facebook network. The dashed line marks the top 5% of the nodes. Nodes are colored according to the class they fit into, with the blue ones being top class (most influential nodes). 3.3. Selecting the Features for Machine Learning Algorithms The final step to achieve good results with a machine learning model is a trainable representation. We used the centrality measures t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Machine learning algorithm comparison with mean values aggregated across all the experiments. First, we conducted an experiment based on a classic machine learning scenario. We put aside a random subset of 20% of the graph’s nodes as the hold-out test set, trained the model for each task, and evaluated its performance on the previously unseen part of the data. The results of this experiment, presented in [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LightGBM performance in various tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model generalization. Analysing the results, we can also see a pattern regarding the type of networks. In each of the experiments, especially considering the higher number of classes, the ML model performed best on the test network from the same family as the train net…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of Smart Bins, clustering discretization and Fixed bins, an arbitrary choice of top 5% nodes. 4.4. The Importance of Features The final element that we have analysed is the node features’ importance on the ML model output. We used Shapley values [42,43] to c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Feature importance. Finally, at the second to last position, we have PageRank, which is usually considered as a measure able to select the most important users. However, if we look at the PageRank mechanism, we notice that it usually benefits nodes which have high in-d…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A social force evacuation model with the leadership effect

    Hou, L.; Liu, J.G.; Pan, X.; Wang, B.H. A social force evacuation model with the leadership effect. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2014, 400, 93–99

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Seeds selection for spreading in a weighted cascade model

    Hong, T.; Liu, Q. Seeds selection for spreading in a weighted cascade model. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2019, 526, 120943

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A mathematical theory of communication

    Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423

    work page 1948

  4. [4]

    Key node ranking in complex networks: A novel entropy and mutual information-based approach

    Li, Y.; Cai, W.; Li, Y.; Du, X. Key node ranking in complex networks: A novel entropy and mutual information-based approach. Entropy 2019, 22, 52

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network

    Kempe, D.; Kleinberg, J.; Tardos, É. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, 24–27 August 2003; pp. 137–146

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Identifying spreading influence nodes for social networks

    Ou, Y.; Guo, Q.; Liu, J. Identifying spreading influence nodes for social networks. Front. Eng. Manag. 2022, 9, 520–549

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Influence maximization frameworks, performance, challenges and directions on social network: A theoretical study

    Singh, S.S.; Srivastva, D.; Verma, M.; Singh, J. Influence maximization frameworks, performance, challenges and directions on social network: A theoretical study. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022, 34, 7570–7603

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Top influencers can be identified universally by combining classical centralities

    Bucur, D. Top influencers can be identified universally by combining classical centralities. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20550

    work page 2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    A machine learning-based approach for vital node identification in complex networks

    Rezaei, A.A.; Munoz, J.; Jalili, M.; Khayyam, H. A machine learning-based approach for vital node identification in complex networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 214, 119086

    2023

  2. [10]

    A machine learning based framework for identifying influential nodes in complex networks

    Zhao, G.; Jia, P .; Huang, C.; Zhou, A.; Fang, Y. A machine learning based framework for identifying influential nodes in complex networks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 65462–65471

    2020

  3. [11]

    Gcomb: Learning budget-constrained combinatorial algorithms over billion-sized graphs

    Manchanda, S.; Mittal, A.; Dhawan, A.; Medya, S.; Ranu, S.; Singh, A. Gcomb: Learning budget-constrained combinatorial algorithms over billion-sized graphs. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2020, 33, 20000–20011

    2020

  4. [12]

    Influence maximization in complex networks through supervised machine learning

    Hussain, O.A.; Zaidi, F. Influence maximization in complex networks through supervised machine learning. In Complex Networks & Their Applications X: Volume 2, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Complex Networks and Their Applications COMPLEX NETWORKS 2021 10;...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Finding influencers in complex networks: An effective deep reinforcement learning approach

    Liu, C.; Fan, C.; Zhang, Z. Finding influencers in complex networks: An effective deep reinforcement learning approach. Comput. J. 2024, 67, 463–473

    2024

  6. [14]

    Topological to deep learning era for identifying influencers in online social networks: A systematic review

    Rashid, Y.; Bhat, J.I. Topological to deep learning era for identifying influencers in online social networks: A systematic review. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2024, 83, 14671–14714

    2024

  7. [15]

    Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification

    Freeman, L.C. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. In Social Network: Critical Concepts in Sociology; Routledge: Londres, UK, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 238–263

    2002

  8. [16]

    Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on multiple local attributes and information entropy

    Zhang, J.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, L.; Zhang, J. Identifying influential nodes in complex networks based on multiple local attributes and information entropy. Entropy 2022, 24, 293

    2022

  9. [17]

    How to identify the most powerful node in complex networks? A novel entropy centrality approach

    Qiao, T.; Shan, W.; Zhou, C. How to identify the most powerful node in complex networks? A novel entropy centrality approach. Entropy 2017, 19, 614

    2017

  10. [18]

    Weighted kshell degree neighborhood method: An approach independent of completeness of global network structure for identifying the influential spreaders

    Namtirtha, A.; Dutta, A.; Dutta, B. Weighted kshell degree neighborhood method: An approach independent of completeness of global network structure for identifying the influential spreaders. In Proceedings of the 2018 10th International Conference on Communication Systems & Ne...

    2018

  11. [19]

    Network-based high level data classification

    Silva, T.C.; Zhao, L. Network-based high level data classification. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 2012, 23, 954–970

    2012

  12. [20]

    Deep-learning-based identification of influential spreaders in online social networks

    Wang, F.; She, J.; Ohyama, Y.; Wu, M. Deep-learning-based identification of influential spreaders in online social networks. In Proceedings of the IECON 2019-45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Lisbon, Portugal, 14–17 October 2019; IEEE: Piscataw...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Influencer Detection with Dynamic Graph Neural Networks

    Tiukhova, E.; Penaloza, E.; Óskarsdóttir, M.; Garcia, H.; Bahnsen, A.C.; Baesens, B.; Snoeck, M.; Bravo, C. Influencer Detection with Dynamic Graph Neural Networks. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2211.09664

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Perturb and combine to identify influential spreaders in real-world networks

    Tixier, A.J.P .; Rossi, M.E.G.; Malliaros, F.D.; Read, J.; Vazirgiannis, M. Perturb and combine to identify influential spreaders in real-world networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, Vancouver,...

    2019

  15. [23]

    Leveraging neighborhood and path information for influential spreaders recognition in complex networks

    Ullah, A.; Sheng, J.; Wang, B.; Din, S.U.; Khan, N. Leveraging neighborhood and path information for influential spreaders recognition in complex networks. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 2024, 62, 377–401 , 1–25

    2024

  16. [24]

    LSS: A locality-based structure system to evaluate the spreader’s importance in social complex networks

    Ullah, A.; Shao, J.; Yang, Q.; Khan, N.; Bernard, C.M.; Kumar, R. LSS: A locality-based structure system to evaluate the spreader’s importance in social complex networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 228, 120326

    2023

  17. [25]

    Least squares quantization in PCM

    Lloyd, S. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1982, 28, 129–137

    1982

  18. [26]

    A Tutorial on Spectral Clustering

    von Luxburg, U. A Tutorial on Spectral Clustering. CoRR 2007, 17, 395–416. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0189

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise

    Ester, M.; Kriegel, H.P .; Sander, J.; Xu, X. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Proceedings of the KDD, Portland, Oregon, 2–4 August 1996; Volume 96, pp. 226–231

    1996

  20. [28]

    Centrality in networks: I

    Freeman, L. Centrality in networks: I. conceptual clarifications. social networks. Soc. Netw. 1979, 10, 0378-8733

    1979

  21. [29]

    On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation

    Brandes, U. On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Soc. Netw. 2008, 30, 136–145

    2008

  22. [30]

    Hierarchy measure for complex networks

    Mones, E.; Vicsek, L.; Vicsek, T. Hierarchy measure for complex networks. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e33799

    2012

  23. [31]

    Identifying a set of influential spreaders in complex networks

    Zhang, J.X.; Chen, D.B.; Dong, Q.; Zhao, Z.D. Identifying a set of influential spreaders in complex networks. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27823

    2016

  24. [32]

    Scientific collaboration networks

    Newman, M.E. Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Phys. Rev. E 2001, 64, 016132

    2001

  25. [33]

    Generalizations of the clustering coefficient to weighted complex networks

    Saramäki, J.; Kivelä, M.; Onnela, J.P .; Kaski, K.; Kertesz, J. Generalizations of the clustering coefficient to weighted complex networks. Phys. Rev. E 2007, 75, 027105

    2007

  26. [34]

    An O (m) algorithm for cores decomposition of networks

    Batagelj, V .; Zaversnik, M. An O (m) algorithm for cores decomposition of networks. arXiv 2003, arXiv:cs/0310049

    2003 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Power and centrality: A family of measures

    Bonacich, P . Power and centrality: A family of measures. Am. J. Sociol. 1987, 92, 1170–1182

    1987

  28. [36]

    The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web; Technical Report; Stanford InfoLab: Stanford, USA 1999

    Page, L.; Brin, S.; Motwani, R.; Winograd, T. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web; Technical Report; Stanford InfoLab: Stanford, USA 1999

    1999

  29. [37]

    Axioms for centrality

    Boldi, P .; Vigna, S. Axioms for centrality. Internet Math. 2014, 10, 222–262

    2014

  30. [38]

    Revisiting semi-supervised learning with graph embeddings

    Yang, Z.; Cohen, W.; Salakhudinov, R. Revisiting semi-supervised learning with graph embeddings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, New York, NY, USA, 19–24 June 2016; PMLR: 2016; pp. 40–48

    2016

  31. [39]

    Multi-scale attributed node embedding

    Rozemberczki, B.; Allen, C.; Sarkar, R. Multi-scale attributed node embedding. J. Complex Netw. 2021, 9, cnab014

    2021

  32. [40]

    Machine Learning: Algorithms, Real-World Applications and Research Directions

    Sarker, I.H. Machine Learning: Algorithms, Real-World Applications and Research Directions. SN Comput. Sci. 2021, 2, 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-00592-x

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    Quantifying layer similarity in multiplex networks: A systematic study

    Bródka, P .; Chmiel, A.; Magnani, M.; Ragozini, G. Quantifying layer similarity in multiplex networks: A systematic study. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 171747

    2018

  34. [42]

    Values of Non-Atomic Games; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1974

    Aumann, R.J.; Shapley, L.S. Values of Non-Atomic Games; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1974

    1974

  35. [43]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions

    Lundberg, S.M.; Lee, S.I. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017, 30, 4765–4774. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and co...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.