Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 39 references

How the use of feature selection methods influences the efficiency and accuracy of complex network simulations

T0 review · 5 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 Feature selection lifts network simulation accuracy by 24 percent on average.

desk verdict A clear engineering write-up of feature selection for a social network simulator, but the headline 8/10 accuracy gain is an in-sample artifact because the same degree-distribution error drives both parameter tuning and feature selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01096 v1 pith:NME2FDXL submitted 2024-12-02 cs.AI physics.soc-ph

Katarzyna Musial , Jiaqi Wen , Andreas Gwyther-Gouriotis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIphysics.soc-ph
keywords featureselectioncomplexnetworksimulationsocialdegreedistributionJensen-Shannondivergenceunsupervisedfilteringnodeheterogeneitydigitaltwin
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 asks whether machine-learning-style feature selection can improve simulations of real-world social networks. It proposes FS-SNS, a hybrid method that first ranks each node's real-world attributes with four unsupervised filter scores and then adds attributes one at a time, in rank order, to the simulator while monitoring the Jensen-Shannon divergence between the simulated and target degree distributions. Across ten real-world networks, FS-SNS lowers the degree-distribution error for eight of them, with an average accuracy improvement of 24 percent and a best case of 69 percent. The authors also report that four or fewer features sufficed to produce the most accurate simulation for every network tested, and that the added computational cost is modest compared with the accuracy gain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a hybrid feature-selection wrapper. It computes four unsupervised filter scores for each node attribute: variance, multicollinearity, Laplacian score, and mutual information; sums them with a weighting that rewards attributes frequently ranked first, second, or third; and then feeds the ranked list to a wrapper that adds one feature at a time to the base social network simulator. After each addition the simulator's sDNA weights are re-optimised with HyperOpt, and the degree distribution of the resulting network is compared with the target using Jensen-Shannon divergence. The wrapper stops when adding the next feature no longer improves that divergence, so the final feature set is the one whose simulation is closest to the target among all combinations tested. This makes the feature subset, rather than any single score, the unit that carries the accuracy gain.

What would settle it

Take one of the ten networks, split its node set into a fitting subset and a reserved subset, run FS-SNS using only the fitting subset to choose features, then measure the Jensen-Shannon divergence on the reserved subset; if the chosen features do not beat the full-feature baseline on the reserved subset in most networks, the claim that FS-SNS improves simulation accuracy is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that including real-world node features in a social network simulator, chosen by a rank-then-wrap feature selection procedure, yields materially more accurate simulations than the same simulator using all available features. The discovery is empirical: on the ten cleaned real-world networks, the FS-SNS algorithm improved the degree-distribution error in 8 out of 10 cases, reduced it by an average of 24 percent, and achieved its best combination with four or fewer features on every network. The method's name is FS-SNS, for feature selection with social network simulations. The result is presented as a step toward digital twins of real-world social systems, because it shows which node attributes actually carry information about connection patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that degree-distribution error measured on the same network used for optimisation is a trustworthy guide for choosing features; because the wrapper selects features using the same Jensen-Shannon divergence that HyperOpt optimises, the reported gains are in-sample fits rather than predictions on unseen networks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using FS-SNS instead of the Base SNS reduces degree-distribution error for 8 of the 10 tested real-world networks, with an average improvement of 24 percent.
  • The most accurate simulation for every tested network uses four or fewer selected features, so small feature subsets can replace the full attribute set.
  • Networks whose connection patterns follow preferential attachment and heterogeneity, such as online social platforms and dominance-structured animal groups, benefit most from feature selection.
  • The efficiency cost of FS-SNS is an extra optimisation run per feature tested; for the wolf network the accuracy gain reaches 69 percent for a modest time increase.
  • The feature ranking step can be applied as a systematic diagnostic for which node attributes matter, even before committing to a full simulation run.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to check whether the four-feature threshold generalises to larger or differently structured networks, since the ten datasets here are small and largely animal or media networks.
  • Because the wrapper stops on in-sample divergence, applying the same selection rule with a held-out network or a different objective, such as clustering coefficient, would show whether the ranking reflects genuine signal or optimisation artefacts.
  • The same rank-and-wrap logic could be applied to edge and topological features, not just node attributes, which the authors suggest as future work.
  • The finding that a single top-ranked feature often beats all features suggests a simple diagnostic for any network simulator: before adding complexity, test each attribute alone.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FS-SNS, a hybrid feature-selection method for a social network simulator (SNS) that ranks real-world node features using unsupervised filter metrics and then wraps a forward search over ranked feature subsets. The sDNA weights (pDNA and hDNA) are optimized with HyperOpt, and the feature subset is chosen by a wrapper that evaluates degree-distribution similarity via Jensen–Shannon divergence. The authors report that FS-SNS improves the degree-distribution error for 8 of 10 real-world networks, with an average improvement of 24%, and they also claim a consistent four-feature threshold for accurate simulation. Efficiency comparisons show that FS-SNS is slower than the Base SNS but, in the authors' view, worth the accuracy gain.

Significance. If the reported improvements were properly validated, the paper would be a useful practical contribution to complex network simulation and digital twin research: it uses publicly available datasets, provides a GitHub repository, and addresses the underexplored question of selecting real-world node features for SNSs. However, the current evaluation does not support the central claim. The feature-selection wrapper and the HyperOpt optimizer both minimize the same in-sample Jensen–Shannon divergence of the degree distribution, so the reported gains are training-set fits rather than evidence of genuine predictive improvement. The lack of any held-out evaluation, repeated runs, or error bars further weakens the empirical claims. The manuscript's main value is therefore the method proposal and the reproducible pipeline, not the quantitative conclusions as currently stated.

major comments (5)
  1. The evaluation is circular. Section III-A states that the degree distribution is 'the metric to optimise and evaluate the SNS,' and HyperOpt minimizes the Jensen–Shannon divergence of the degree distribution to tune the pDNA and hDNA weights. Section III-B then uses the same JS divergence in the wrapper: Algorithm 1 stops when the degree-distribution error does not improve, and the feature combination 'closest to 0' is selected. Thus the final FS-SNS error is obtained by minimizing the same objective on the same target network at both the weight-optimization and feature-selection stages. The comparison against Base SNS is biased because FS-SNS has the additional freedom to choose a feature subset that best fits the training metric. The reported 8-of-10 improvement and the 24% average improvement are therefore in-sample results and do not establish that FS-SNS generalizes. A proper evaluation would require a held-out set of nodes or edges, a separate evaluation metric, or at least a nested cross-validation-style protocol where feature selection and weight optimization are performed on training data and the final accuracy is measured on validation data.
  2. The Twitch and Deezer networks are heavily downsampled before simulation, but the results are presented as simulations of 'Twitch' and 'Deezer.' For Twitch, the graph is reduced until it has only 1,000 edges, and for Deezer the number of nodes is cut roughly in half; the target degree distribution is then the distribution of the subsample, not of the original network. This is especially consequential because Deezer is one of the networks with the largest reported improvement (50%). Without validating that the sampling procedure preserves the properties relevant to the simulation, the results for these two networks cannot be taken as evidence about the full networks. The paper should either simulate the full networks, if computationally feasible, or explicitly reframe the claims and validate the sampling method (e.g., by comparing several samples and reporting variance).
  3. All results come from single runs with fixed random seeds (seed 50 for network formation and seed 42 for HyperOpt). No repeated trials, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. The claim that FS-SNS 'improves' 8 of 10 networks is therefore vulnerable to run-to-run variation; the accuracy differences in Table III, which are as small as 0.01 for the Bison and Songbird networks, could easily be within the noise of the stochastic simulation and optimization procedure. The authors should repeat the experiments over multiple seeds or initializations and report means and variances, and ideally a paired statistical test over the ten networks.
  4. Algorithm 1 is inconsistent with the surrounding text. The text says the goal is to minimize the Jensen–Shannon divergence error, i.e., values closer to zero are better. In the pseudocode, however, the variables 'M DD' and 'GM DD' denote a 'Max Degree Distribution' and the update condition 'if DD > M DD' selects larger values as better. Moreover, the pseudocode line 'Set pDNA and hDNA' does not state that these weights are obtained from the HyperOpt optimization described in Section III-A, which is an essential step of the method. As written, the algorithm is not reproducible and does not match the experimental description.
  5. The claimed 'threshold of 4 features' is not supported by the evidence. Table III shows that the selected feature counts are 1, 1, 2, 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, and 1; 4 is simply the maximum number of features selected in any network. This does not establish a threshold, and the statement that '4 or fewer features' achieve the most accurate simulation is trivially true given the selection procedure. If the authors intend to claim that no network benefits from more than four features, they need to test combinations beyond four features and show that accuracy does not improve.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table I says the data sets are 'shown in the appendix,' but no appendix is present in the manuscript; the table itself already provides the network names and sizes, so the reference to the appendix should be removed or the appendix should be added.
  2. Equation (1) is ambiguous: the notation P R(1), P R(2), P R(3) is not defined, and the fraction '/3' appears to be misplaced. Please rewrite the formula with explicit definitions of all symbols.
  3. The caption of Figure 5 mentions a 'red line' for FS-SNS, but the figure as provided has two curves without clear color labels; please add a legend and ensure the color description matches the rendered figure.
  4. The naming of feature-ranking methods is inconsistent: 'FR-Var-Col-Lap' appears in Table III, while the discussion refers to 'FS Col Lap' and 'FR-Var-Col-Lap' interchangeably. Please use one consistent terminology.
  5. Typographical errors: 'random see' should be 'random seed' in two places, and 'node pari scores' should be 'node pair scores.'
  6. Several references have incomplete author information (e.g., [7], [10], [16]) or placeholder initials; please complete them according to the citation style.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The reported FS-SNS accuracy gain is an in-sample fit: the same JS degree-distribution divergence is simultaneously the HyperOpt objective, the feature-wrapper selection criterion, and the final evaluation metric; the 4-feature threshold inherits this issue.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-A (Base SNS) and Section III-B / Algorithm 1 (FS-SNS)]
    "Degree Distribution was chosen as the metric to optimise and evaluate the SNS ... The wrapper has a built in stop loss which will end the process if the error of the simulation computed using the Jensen–Shannon (JS) divergence [28] of the degree distribution is not improved after a new feature combination is tested. The features that achieve a degree distribution error closest to 0 will be chosen as the optimal features for the SNS."

    The accuracy metric reported in Figure 2 and Table III (degree-distribution JS divergence) is the same objective used for HyperOpt sDNA-weight tuning and, more decisively, the same criterion used by Algorithm 1 to choose and stop the feature subset. Therefore the FS-SNS result is the training error of a search that explicitly selects the minimal JS divergence; the 8/10 'improvement' and 24% average gain follow from the selection rule rather than from an independent evaluation. A held-out validation or a different evaluation metric would be needed to show FS-SNS generalizes better than Base SNS.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Summary and discussion]
    "Thus, the takeaway from the analysis is that the FS-SNS should be used over the Base SNS for simulating real-world networks and that the most accurate SNS can be achieved for all networks with 4 or less real-world features from the network."

    The '4 or less features' threshold is a summary of Table III, which lists the feature-subset sizes that produced the lowest in-sample JS divergence for each of the 10 networks after the wrapper had already searched for the minimum. It is not a validated cross-network law; it is an artifact of the same in-sample selection procedure that produced the accuracy claims, so presenting it as a discovered threshold inherits the selection-bias problem.

full rationale

The paper's central demonstration is that FS-SNS improves simulation accuracy for 8 of 10 networks. The evidence for this claim is a comparison of degree-distribution Jensen-Shannon divergence between Base SNS and FS-SNS. But that divergence is not an external benchmark: Section III-A states that the degree distribution was 'chosen as the metric to optimise and evaluate the SNS', and Section III-B states that the wrapper stops when the JS divergence of the degree distribution is not improved and chooses the features with error 'closest to 0'. Thus, the same function is used as (i) the HyperOpt objective for tuning the sDNA weights, (ii) the feature-wrapper selection criterion, and (iii) the reported accuracy measure. FS-SNS therefore reports the minimum of the very quantity it optimizes, whereas Base SNS only optimizes weights, not feature subsets; the extra search freedom makes an in-sample improvement nearly automatic. The paper does not use held-out networks, cross-validation, or a different evaluation metric, so the '24% average improvement' and the '8 out of 10' claim are not established as out-of-sample or generalizable results. The '4-feature threshold' is likewise mined from these same in-sample selections. This is the classic fitted-input-called-prediction circularity: the selected feature combinations are scored on the training objective and the resulting training scores are presented as the method's accuracy. The result is not circular in the sense of a logical tautology about equations, but the quantitative headline reduces to the selection criterion by construction.

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

The central claim relies on the fitted sDNA weights, hand-chosen rank weights in the feature score, and several domain assumptions about the sufficiency of degree distribution and the transferability of filter methods. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • sDNA weights (pDNA and hDNA) = optimized per feature combination via HyperOpt
    The simulator's link formation weights are fitted to minimize the degree distribution error for each feature set, so the reported accuracy is a training fit.
  • Rank weights in FS equation = 3, 2, 1
    Equation (1) assigns weights 3, 2, 1 to features ranked first, second, or third by the filter metrics; these values are chosen by hand and affect the feature ranking.
  • Random interference = 0.001
    A small constant added to tie-breaking in network formation; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Degree distribution is a sufficient evaluation metric for simulation accuracy.
    The paper uses only degree distribution (JS divergence) to measure simulation quality, assuming it captures the essential network structure.
  • domain assumption The Social DNA model can faithfully reproduce real-world network structure given appropriate node features.
    The base SNS is taken from prior work by the same group, and its adequacy is not independently validated in this study.
  • domain assumption Unsupervised filter metrics transfer from standard feature selection to node features in networks.
    The paper assumes variance, multicollinearity, Laplacian score, and mutual information rankings are meaningful for network node attributes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How the use of feature selection methods influences the efficiency and accuracy of complex network simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NME2FDXL

@misc{pith2026241201096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How the use of feature selection methods influences the efficiency and accuracy of complex network simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NME2FDXL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01096}
}
read the original abstract

Complex network systems' models are designed to perfectly emulate real-world networks through the use of simulation and link prediction. Complex network systems are defined by nodes and their connections where both have real-world features that result in a heterogeneous network in which each of the nodes has distinct characteristics. Thus, incorporating real-world features is an important component to achieve a simulation which best represents the real-world. Currently very few complex network systems implement real-world features, thus this study proposes feature selection methods which utilise unsupervised filtering techniques to rank real-world node features alongside a wrapper function to test combinations of the ranked features. The chosen method was coined FS-SNS which improved 8 out of 10 simulations of real-world networks. A consistent threshold of included features was also discovered which saw a threshold of 4 features to achieve the most accurate simulation for all networks. Through these findings the study also proposes future work and discusses how the findings can be used to further the Digital Twin and complex network system field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01096 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the FS-SNS architecture the degree distribution is not improved after a new feature combination is tested. The features that achieve a degree distribution error closest to 0 will be chosen as the optimal features for the SNS. This processed is outlined in the feature selection algorithm 1 C. Experimental Setup The experimental setup requires data processing and clean￾ing, followed by the setting of p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Base SNS vs FS-SNS based on degree distribution error (JS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Base SNS vs FS-SNS based on degree distribution similarity across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The efficiency of each of the feature selection methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Degree distribution of each network comparing the target graph to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,

    S. Boccaletti, V . Latora, Y . Moreno, M. Chavez, and D. U. Hwang, “Complex networks: Structure and dynamics,”Physics Reports, vol. 424, no. 7, pp. 175–308, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Location-based social simulation,

    H. Kavak, J.-S. Kim, A. Crooks, D. Pfoser, C. Wenk, and A. Z ¨ufle, “Location-based social simulation,” in Proceedings of the 16th Interna- tional Symposium on Spatial and Temporal Databases , 2019, pp. 218– 221

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Social networks on the internet,

    K. Musiał and P. Kazienko, “Social networks on the internet,” World Wide Web, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 31–72, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    A community bridge boosting social network link prediction model,

    F. Gao, K. Musial, and B. Gabrys, “A community bridge boosting social network link prediction model,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2017, 2017, pp. 683–689

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Local probabilistic models for link prediction,

    C. Wang, V . Satuluri, and S. Parthasarathy, “Local probabilistic models for link prediction,” in Seventh IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM 2007) . IEEE, 2007, pp. 322–331

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Benchmarks for testing community detection algorithms on directed and weighted graphs with overlapping communities,

    A. Lancichinetti and S. Fortunato, “Benchmarks for testing community detection algorithms on directed and weighted graphs with overlapping communities,” Physical Review E , vol. 80, no. 1, p. 016118, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    A review of feature selection methods with applications,

    J. A, B. K, and B. N, “A review of feature selection methods with applications,” 38th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1200–1205, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Social network analysis: An overview,

    S. Tabassum, F. S. Pereira, S. Fernandes, and J. Gama, “Social network analysis: An overview,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , vol. 8, no. 5, p. e1256, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups,

    W. W. Zachary, “An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups,” Journal of Anthropological Research , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 452–473, 1977

    1977

  2. [10]

    2015 international conference on computing for sustainable global development (indiacom),

    H. M, “2015 international conference on computing for sustainable global development (indiacom),” 11th to 13th March, 2015, Bharati Vidyapeeth’s Institute of Computers, Applications and Management (BVICAM), vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 1323–1327, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    What is heterogeneity and is it important?

    Fletcher and John, “What is heterogeneity and is it important?” British Medical Journal, vol. 334, no. 10, pp. 94–96, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Simulation and augmen- tation of social networks for building deep learning models,

    A. W.-U. Ashraf, M. Budka, and K. Musial, “Simulation and augmen- tation of social networks for building deep learning models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09087, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Digital twin-oriented complex networked systems based on heterogeneous node features and interaction rules,

    J. Wen, B. Gabrys, and K. Musial, “Digital twin-oriented complex networked systems based on heterogeneous node features and interaction rules,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11034 , pp. 1–57, 08 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Disaster city digital twin: A vision for integrating artificial and human intelligence for dis- aster management,

    C. Fan, C. Zhang, A. Yahja, and A. Mostafavi, “Disaster city digital twin: A vision for integrating artificial and human intelligence for dis- aster management,” International Journal of Information Management , vol. 56, p. 102049, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Epidemic spreading on complex networks with general degree and weight distributions,

    W. Wang, M. Tang, H.-F. Zhang, H. Gao, Y . Do, and Z.-H. Liu, “Epidemic spreading on complex networks with general degree and weight distributions,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 90, p. 042803, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Modeling and analyzing malware propagation in social networks with heterogeneous infection rates,

    P. J. a, J. L. b, Y . F. b, L. L. b, and L. L. a, “Modeling and analyzing malware propagation in social networks with heterogeneous infection rates,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , vol. 507, no. 12, pp. 240–254, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Liu and H

    H. Liu and H. Motoda, Computational Methods of Feature Selection . Chapman & Hall, 2007, no. 20

    2007

  10. [18]

    A survey on feature selection methods,

    G. Chandrashekar and F. Sahin, “A survey on feature selection methods,” Computers and Electrical Engineering, vol. 40, no. 19, pp. 16–28, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Iterative laplacian score for feature selection,

    L. M. Linling Zhu and D. Zhang, “Iterative laplacian score for feature selection,” Communications in Computer and Information Science , vol. 321, pp. 80–87, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    Unsupervised feature selection by regularized matrix factorization,

    M. Qi, T. Wanga, F. Liua, B. Zhangc, J. Wanga, and Y . Yi, “Unsupervised feature selection by regularized matrix factorization,” Neurocomputing, vol. 273, pp. 593–610, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Zheng and A

    A. Zheng and A. Casari, Feature Engineering for Machine Learning . O’Reilly Media, Inc, USA, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Bol ´on-Canedo and A

    V . Bol ´on-Canedo and A. Alonso-Betanzos, Recent Advances in Ensem- bles for Feature Selection . Springer, 2018, no. 19

    2018

  15. [23]

    Feature selection for text classification: A review,

    X. Deng, Y . Li, J. Weng, and J. Zhang, “Feature selection for text classification: A review,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , vol. 78, no. 21, pp. 3797––3816, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Heterogeneous feature representation for digital twin-oriented complex networked systems,

    K. M. Jiaqi Wen, Bogdan Gabrys, “Heterogeneous feature representation for digital twin-oriented complex networked systems,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2309.13229, pp. 1–80, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hyperopt: a python library for model selection and hyperparameter optimization,

    J. Bergstra1, B. Komer, C. Eliasmith, D. Yamins, and D. D. Cox, “Hyperopt: a python library for model selection and hyperparameter optimization,” Computational Science & Discovery, vol. 14, no. 8, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Hyperparameter optimization for machine learning models based on bayesian optimization,

    J. Wu, X.-Y . Chen, H. Zhang, L.-D. Xiong, H. Lei, and S.-H. Deng, “Hyperparameter optimization for machine learning models based on bayesian optimization,” JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, vol. 17, no. 1, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Tree-structured parzen estimator: Understanding its al- gorithm components and their roles for better empirical performance,

    S. Watanabe, “Tree-structured parzen estimator: Understanding its al- gorithm components and their roles for better empirical performance,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2304.11127, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Variability analysis of complex networks measures based on stochastic distances,

    R. S. Cabral, A. C. Frery, and J. A. Ram ´ırez, “Variability analysis of complex networks measures based on stochastic distances,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , vol. 415, pp. 73–86, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

    2014

  21. [29]

    A multi-species respository of social networks,

    P. Sah, J. D. M ´endez, and S. Bansal, “A multi-species respository of social networks,” Scientific Data, vol. 44, no. 14, pp. 1–6, 2019. 11

    2019

  22. [30]

    SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,

    J. Leskovec and A. Krevl, “SNAP Datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection,” http://snap.stanford.edu/data, Jun. 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Borgatti, M

    S. Borgatti, M. G. Everett, and L. C. Freeman. (2002) Ucinet iv datasets. http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/data/ucinet/ucidata.htm#konec

    2002

  24. [32]

    Sampling from social network to maintain community structure,

    Z. X. Chao Tong, Jianwei Nui and F. Peng, “Sampling from social network to maintain community structure,” International journal of communication systems, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 1363–1377, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Arnaboldi, A

    V . Arnaboldi, A. Passarella, M. Conti, and R. I. Dunbar, Online Social Networks. Elsevier, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Knockouts of high- ranking males have limited impact on baboon social networks

    Franz, Mathias, J. Altmann, and S. C. Alberts, “Knockouts of high- ranking males have limited impact on baboon social networks.” Current zoology, vol. 61, no. 16, pp. 107–113, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Tracking individuals shows spatial fidelity is a key regulator of ant social organization,

    D. Mersch, A. Crespi, and L. Keller, “Tracking individuals shows spatial fidelity is a key regulator of ant social organization,” Science (New York, N.Y.), vol. 340, 04 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Stress response, gut microbial diversity and sexual signals correlate with social interactions,

    I. I. Levin, D. M. Zonana, B. K. Fosdick, S. J. Song, R. Knight, and R. J. Safran, “Stress response, gut microbial diversity and sexual signals correlate with social interactions,” Biology Letters , vol. 12, pp. 1–4, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Dominance relations and breeding rate in mature male american,

    D. F. LOT, “Dominance relations and breeding rate in mature male american,” Zeitschrift f ¨ur Tierpsychologie, vol. 49, no. 978, pp. 418– 432, 1979

    1979

  30. [38]

    Feeder use predicts both acquisition and transmission of a contagious pathogen in a north american songbird,

    D. R. F. James S. Adelman, Sahnzi C. Moyers and D. M. Hawley, “Feeder use predicts both acquisition and transmission of a contagious pathogen in a north american songbird,” Biological sciences, vol. 282, pp. 1–9, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Data analysis in public social networks,

    M. Z. Lubos Takac, “Data analysis in public social networks,” Day Trends of Innovations, 2012. Jiaqi Wen received the PhD. degree in Computer Science from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia, in 2024. She is currently working as a research associate wi...

    2012

Pith tools

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