4.6 Article

Node copying: A random graph model for effective graph sampling

期刊

SIGNAL PROCESSING
卷 192, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2021.108335

关键词

Generative graph model; Graph neural network; Adversarial attack; Recommender systems

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a generative model based on node copying for constructing a distribution over graphs. The model is simple yet effective, preserving key characteristics of the graph structure, improving node classification accuracy, mitigating the effect of topological attacks, and enhancing recall in recommendation systems.
There has been an increased interest in applying machine learning techniques on relational structured data based on an observed graph. Often, this graph is not fully representative of the true relationship amongst nodes. In these settings, building a generative model conditioned on the observed graph allows to take the graph uncertainty into account. Various existing techniques either rely on restrictive assumptions, fail to preserve topological properties within the samples or are prohibitively expensive for larger graphs. In this work, we introduce the node copying model for constructing a distribution over graphs. Sampling of a random graph is carried out by replacing each node's neighbors by those of a randomly sampled similar node. The sampled graphs preserve key characteristics of the graph structure without explicitly targeting them. Additionally, sampling from this model is extremely simple and scales linearly with the nodes. We show the usefulness of the copying model in three tasks. First, in node classification, a Bayesian formulation based on node copying achieves higher accuracy in sparse data settings. Second, we employ our proposed model to mitigate the effect of adversarial attacks on the graph topology. Last, incorporation of the model in a recommendation system setting improves recall over state-of-the-art methods. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据