skip to main content
research-article

Resisting the Edge-Type Disturbance for Link Prediction in Heterogeneous Networks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 November 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The rapid development of heterogeneous networks has proposed new challenges to the long-standing link prediction problem. Existing models trained on the verified edge samples from different types usually learn type-specific knowledge, and their type-specific predictions may be contradictory for unverified edge samples with uncertain types. This challenge is termed edge-type disturbance in link prediction in heterogeneous networks. To address this challenge, we develop a disturbance-resilient prediction method (DRPM) comprising a structural characterizer, a type differentiator, and a resilient predictor. The structural characterizer is responsible for learning edge representations for link prediction. Concurrently, the type differentiator distinguishes type-specific edge representations to generate diverse type experts while maximizing their link prediction performances on specific types. Furthermore, the resilient predictor evaluates the reliability weights of different type experts to develop a resilient prediction mechanism to aggregate discriminable predictions. Extensive experiments conducted on various real-world datasets demonstrate the importance of the explainable introduction of the edge-type disturbance and the superiority of DRPM over state-of-the-art methods.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Coscia M.. 2021. Noise corrected sampling of online social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 15, 2 (2021), 121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Wang H., Qiao C., Guo X., Fang L., Sha Y., and Gong Z.. 2021. Identifying and evaluating anomalous structural change-based nodes in generalized dynamic social networks. ACM Transactions on the Web 15, 4 (2021), 122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Ni Q., Guo J., Guo H., Du H., and Wang H.. 2022. Multi-attribute based influence maximization in social networks: Algorithms and analysis. Theoretical Computer Science 921 (2022), 5062.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Chen J., Gong Z., Li Y., Zhang H., Yu H., Zhu J., Fan G., Wu X., and Wu K.. 2022. Meta-path based neighbors for behavioral target generalization in sequential recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 9, 3 (2022), 16581667.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Zhou T.. 2021. Progresses and challenges in link prediction. iScience 24, 11 (2021), 103217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Wang H., Ni Q., Wang J., Li H., Ni F., Wang H., and Yan L.. 2021. Existence identifications of unobserved paths in graph-based social networks. World Wide Web 24 (2021), 157173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Du Y., Tian X., Liu W., Wang M., Song W., Fan Y., and Wang X.. 2015. A novel page ranking algorithm based on triadic closure and hyperlink-induced topic search. Intelligent Data Analysis 19, 5 (2015), 11311149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Sun J., Medo M., and Staab S.. 2020. Time-invariant degree growth in preferential attachment network models. Physical Review E 101, 2 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Lü L. and Zhou T.. 2011. Link prediction in complex networks: A survey. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 390, 6 (2011), 11501170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Liu F., Liu B., Sun C., Liu M., and Wang X.. 2013. Deep learning approaches for link prediction in social network services. International Conference on Neural Information Processing. 425432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Butun E. and Kaya M.. 2020. Predicting citation count of scientists as a link prediction problem. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 50, 10 (2020), 45184529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. [12] Xiao Y., Li R., Lu X., and Liu Y.. 2021. Link prediction based on feature representation and fusion. Information Sciences 548, 16 (2021), 117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Wang H., Wu J., Hu W., and Wu X.. 2019. Detecting and assessing anomalous evolutionary behaviors of nodes in evolving social networks. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 13, 1 (2019), 124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Wang H. and Qiao C.. 2020. A nodes' evolution diversity inspired method to detect anomalies in dynamic social networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 32, 10 (2020), 18681880.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Huang S., Zhang J., Wang L., and Hua X. S.. 2016. Social friend recommendation based on multiple network correlation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia 18, 2 (2016), 287299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Han J., Teng X., Tang X., Cai X., and Liang H.. 2020. Discovering knowledge combinations in multidimensional collaboration network: A method based on trust link prediction and knowledge similarity. Knowledge-Based Systems 195, 2 (2020), 105701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Shi C., Li Y., Zhang J., Sun Y., and Philip S. Y.. 2016. A survey of heterogeneous information network analysis. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 29, 1 (2016), 1737.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Kurmyshev E., Juárez H., and González-Silva R.. 2011. Dynamics of bounded confidence opinion in heterogeneous social networks: Concord against partial antagonism. Physica A Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 390, 16 (2011), 29452955.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Li Y., Li Q., Gao J., Su L., Zhao B., Fan W., and Han J.. 2016. Conflicts to harmony: A framework for resolving conflicts in heterogeneous data by truth discovery. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28, 8 (2016), 19861999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. [20] Xiao H., Gao J., Li Q., Ma F., Su L., Feng Y., and Zhang A.. 2019. Towards confidence interval estimation in truth discovery. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 31, 3 (2019), 575588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Zhou X., and Chen L.. 2014. Event detection over Twitter social media streams. The VLDB Journal 23, 3 (2014), 381400.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Dai C., Chen L., Li B., and Li Y.. 2017. Link prediction in multi-relational networks based on relational similarity. Information Sciences 394 (2017), 198216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Ahn M. and Jung W.. 2015. Accuracy test for link prediction in terms of similarity index: The case of WS and BA models. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 429 (2015), 177183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Rawat V. and Vashishtha S.. 2014. A cluster based probabilistic model for link prediction to improve user interface over internet. International Journal of Computer Applications 106, 7 (2014), 1822.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Wang Y., Liu F., Xia S., and Jia W.. 2017. Link sign prediction by variational bayesian probabilistic matrix factorization with student-t prior. Information Sciences 405 (2017), 175189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Wang W., Zhang Q., and Zhou T.. 2011. Evaluating network models: A likelihood Analysis. Europhysics Letters 98, 2 (2011), 2800428009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Wu J.. 2018. A generalized tree augmented naive bayes link prediction model. Journal of Computational Science 27 (2018), 206217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Pouyanfar S., Sadiq S., Yan Y., Tian H., Tao Y., Reyes M. P., and Iyengar S. S.. 2018. A survey on deep learning: algorithms, techniques, and applications. ACM Computing Surveys 51, 5 (2018), 136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Lu Y., Shi C., Hu L., and Liu Z.. 2019. Relation structure-aware heterogeneous information network embedding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 44564463.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Negi S. and Chaudhury S.. 2016. Link prediction in heterogeneous social networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 609617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Chen H., Yin H., Wang W., Wang H., Nguyen Q., and Li X.. 2018. PME: Projected metric embedding on heterogeneous networks for link prediction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference. 11771186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Zhao K., Bai T., Wu B., Wang B., Zhang Y., Yang Y., and Nie J. Y.. 2020. Deep adversarial completion for sparse heterogeneous information network embedding. In Proceedings of the Web Conference. 508518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Zhang M. and Chen Y.. 2018. Link prediction based on graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 51715181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Wang P., Agarwal K., Ham C., Choudhury S., and Reddy C.. 2021. Self-supervised learning of contextual embeddings for link prediction in heterogeneous networks. In Proceedings of the Web Conference. 29462957.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. [35] Cen Y., Zou X., Zhang J., Yang H., Zhou J., and Tang J.. 2019. Representation learning for attributed multiplex heterogeneous network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 13581368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Hu B., Fang Y., and Shi C.. 2019. Adversarial learning on heterogeneous information networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 120129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Wang Y., Tang S., Lei Y., Song W., Wang S., and Zhang M.. 2020. Disenhan: Disentangled heterogeneous graph attention network for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 16051614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] Long X., Huang C., Xu Y., Xu H., Dai P., Xia L., and Bo L.. 2021. Social recommendation with self-supervised metagraph informax network. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 11601169.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Fan S., Zhu J., Han X., Shi C., Hu L., Ma B., and Li Y.. 2019. Metapath guided heterogeneous graph neural network for intent recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 24782486.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. [40] Ji H., Wang X., Shi C., Wang B., and Yu P.. 2021. Heterogeneous graph propagation network. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2021). 11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Zhao J., Wang X., Shi C., Hu B., Song G., and Ye Y.. 2021. Heterogeneous graph structure learning for graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 46974705.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Jiang J., Li Z., Ju C., and Wang W.. 2020. MARU: Meta-context aware random walks for heterogeneous network representation learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 575584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Dong Y., Chawla Nitesh. V., and Ananthram S.. 2017. metapath2vec: Scalable representation learning for heterogeneous networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference. 135144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Chen J., Gong Z., Wang W., Wang C., Xu Z., Lv J., Li X., Wu K., and Liu W.. 2022. Adversarial caching training: Unsupervised inductive network representation learning on large-scale graphs. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33, 12 (2022), 70797090.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Kipf T. N. and Welling M.. 2017. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. [46] Grover A. and Leskovec J.. 2016. Node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 855864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Wang H., Cui Z., Liu R., Wang B., Ni Q., Hong Y., and Zhang W.. 2023. Multitype perception method for drug-target interaction prediction. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (2023). 110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Li Q., Li Y., Gao J., Zhao B., Fan W., and Han J., 2014. Resolving Conflicts in heterogeneous data by truth discovery and source reliability estimation. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 11871198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Rozemberczki B., Allen C., and Sarkar R.. 2021. Multi-scale attributed node embedding. Journal of Complex Networks 9, 2 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Fu G., Yuan B., Duan Q., and Yao X.. 2019. Representation learning for heterogeneous information networks via embedding events. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing. 327339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. [51] Suykens J., and Vandewalle J.. 1999. Least squares support vector machine classifiers. Neural Processing Letters 9, 3 (1999), 293300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Hosmer D. W., Lemeshow S., and Sturdivant R. X.. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley and Sons.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. [53] Guns R., and Ronald R.. 2014. Recommending research collaborations using link prediction and random forest classifiers. Scientometrics 101, 2 (2014), 14611473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Resisting the Edge-Type Disturbance for Link Prediction in Heterogeneous Networks

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data
          ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data  Volume 18, Issue 2
          February 2024
          401 pages
          ISSN:1556-4681
          EISSN:1556-472X
          DOI:10.1145/3613562
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 13 November 2023
          • Online AM: 7 August 2023
          • Accepted: 26 July 2023
          • Revised: 19 July 2023
          • Received: 4 May 2022
          Published in tkdd Volume 18, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text