pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19531 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.SI · math.ST· stat.TH

Recognition: unknown

Hypergraph Mining via Proximity Matrix

Junhao Bian , Yilin Bi , Tao Zhou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI math.STstat.TH
keywords hypergraphsproximity matrixresource allocationlink predictioncommunity detectionvital nodesincidence matrixhypergraph mining
0
0 comments X

The pith

A continuous proximity matrix from resource allocation captures node-hyperedge relationships more accurately than the binary incidence matrix.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that the standard binary incidence matrix falls short for hypergraphs because hyperedges vary widely in size, so it proposes a new continuous-valued proximity matrix built from a resource allocation process. This matrix is plugged into straightforward algorithms for link prediction, vital node identification, and community detection. Tests across many real-world hypergraphs show these algorithms beat standard benchmarks on all three tasks. A reader would care if the claim holds because hypergraphs model group interactions in social, biological, and technological systems, and a better basic representation could improve downstream analysis without added complexity.

Core claim

The incidence matrix marks node membership in hyperedges with 0s and 1s, yet this ignores the fact that hyperedges contain different numbers of nodes and therefore transmit influence differently. The authors model a resource allocation process in which nodes send resources to the hyperedges they belong to and then receive resources back in proportion to the hyperedge sizes; the resulting continuous values form the proximity matrix. When this matrix replaces the binary one in algorithms for predicting missing links, ranking important nodes, and partitioning communities, performance rises measurably on real hypergraphs.

What carries the argument

The proximity matrix, a continuous-valued replacement for the incidence matrix that is derived from a two-step resource allocation process on the hypergraph.

If this is right

  • Link prediction in hypergraphs becomes more reliable when missing connections are scored by continuous proximity rather than binary membership.
  • Vital-node rankings shift when importance is measured through resource-flow proximity instead of degree or betweenness on the binary matrix.
  • Community partitions better respect higher-order group structure once the proximity matrix supplies the similarity signal.
  • Simple algorithms can deliver competitive results across tasks once the underlying matrix already encodes size-dependent relationships.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same resource-allocation idea could be tested on other higher-order structures such as simplicial complexes or multilayer networks.
  • If the proximity matrix works because it weights by hyperedge size, similar continuous weighting might improve analysis of ordinary graphs that contain communities of very different densities.
  • Dynamic versions of the matrix could track how proximity evolves when hyperedges are added or removed over time.
  • The approach suggests a general principle that replacing binary indicators with flow-based scores can help any data structure where group size varies.

Load-bearing premise

The resource allocation process produces proximity scores that genuinely reflect node-hyperedge closeness in a size-aware way and that this accuracy, rather than other design choices, drives the reported gains.

What would settle it

Re-running the three tasks on fresh hypergraphs after normalizing all hyperedges to the same size; if the proximity-matrix algorithms lose their advantage, the size-accounting explanation would be undermined.

read the original abstract

Hypergraphs serve as an effective tool widely adopted to characterize higher-order interactions in complex systems. The most intuitive and commonly used mathematical instrument for representing a hypergraph is the incidence matrix, in which each entry is binary, indicating whether the corresponding node belongs to the corresponding hyperedge. Although the incidence matrix has become a foundational tool for hypergraph analysis and mining, we argue that its binary nature is insufficient to accurately capture the complexity of node-hyperedge relationships arising from the fact that different hyperedges can contain vastly different numbers of nodes. Accordingly, based on the resource allocation process on hypergraphs, we propose a continuous-valued matrix to quantify the proximity between nodes and hyperedges. To verify the effectiveness of the proposed proximity matrix, we investigate three important tasks in hypergraph mining: link prediction, vital nodes identification, and community detection. Experimental results on numerous real-world hypergraphs show that simply designed algorithms centered on the proximity matrix significantly outperform benchmark algorithms across these three tasks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes replacing the binary incidence matrix with a continuous-valued proximity matrix derived from a resource allocation process on hypergraphs, arguing that the binary representation fails to capture varying hyperedge sizes. Simple algorithms built around this proximity matrix are then applied to link prediction, vital node identification, and community detection, with the claim that they significantly outperform existing benchmark algorithms on multiple real-world hypergraphs.

Significance. If the central experimental claims hold after proper controls, the proximity matrix could provide a useful, interpretable alternative representation for hypergraph mining that improves downstream task performance without introducing many free parameters. The resource-allocation motivation is intuitive and the absence of fitted parameters is a strength, but the current evidence does not yet isolate the matrix's contribution from algorithmic novelty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'simply designed algorithms centered on the proximity matrix significantly outperform benchmark algorithms' is load-bearing yet unsupported by any mention of error bars, statistical tests, dataset counts, or exclusion criteria; this prevents verification that results support the superiority assertion.
  2. [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation (the section presenting results on the three tasks): no ablation is reported that runs identical algorithmic skeletons once with the proximity matrix and once with the binary incidence matrix, leaving open the possibility that gains arise from new algorithm designs rather than the resource-allocation quantification itself.
  3. [Proximity matrix definition] Definition of the proximity matrix (the section deriving the matrix from resource allocation): the construction is presented as independent of fitted parameters, but without an explicit equation or comparison showing it is strictly superior to binary indicators on the same tasks, the motivation for replacing the incidence matrix remains unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Datasets] The manuscript should include a clear table or section listing all datasets, their sizes, and any preprocessing steps to allow reproducibility.
  2. [Results figures] Performance plots would be clearer if they reported standard deviations across multiple runs or folds rather than single-point metrics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of results, add necessary controls, and clarify the matrix construction.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'simply designed algorithms centered on the proximity matrix significantly outperform benchmark algorithms' is load-bearing yet unsupported by any mention of error bars, statistical tests, dataset counts, or exclusion criteria; this prevents verification that results support the superiority assertion.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract claim requires better support. In the revision we will update the abstract to reference the number of real-world hypergraphs evaluated, note that performance is averaged over multiple runs, and point to the error bars and statistical tests already reported in the experimental section. This will make the superiority assertion verifiable from the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation (the section presenting results on the three tasks): no ablation is reported that runs identical algorithmic skeletons once with the proximity matrix and once with the binary incidence matrix, leaving open the possibility that gains arise from new algorithm designs rather than the resource-allocation quantification itself.

    Authors: This criticism is valid. To isolate the contribution of the proximity matrix itself, we will add an ablation study in the revised experimental section. The same algorithmic frameworks for link prediction, vital node identification, and community detection will be executed once with the proximity matrix and once with the binary incidence matrix, allowing direct comparison of performance differences attributable to the matrix representation. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Proximity matrix definition] Definition of the proximity matrix (the section deriving the matrix from resource allocation): the construction is presented as independent of fitted parameters, but without an explicit equation or comparison showing it is strictly superior to binary indicators on the same tasks, the motivation for replacing the incidence matrix remains unverified.

    Authors: The proximity matrix is constructed from a parameter-free resource allocation process. In the revision we will present the explicit formula more prominently in the main text and will use the new ablation study to provide a direct, side-by-side comparison against the binary incidence matrix on the three tasks. This will verify that the continuous proximity values better reflect varying hyperedge sizes than binary indicators. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: proximity matrix is an independent construction

full rationale

The paper defines the proximity matrix via an explicit resource-allocation process on the hypergraph structure (a standard diffusion-style rule that assigns continuous weights based on node-hyperedge incidence and hyperedge sizes). This definition is not obtained by fitting parameters to the downstream tasks, nor does it invoke self-citations or prior uniqueness theorems from the same authors. The three mining algorithms are then built directly on the new matrix and evaluated empirically against external benchmarks on real data. No equation or claim reduces by construction to the target performance metrics or to a fitted input; the superiority claim rests on experimental comparison rather than algebraic identity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on the resource allocation process producing a superior continuous matrix; this is an invented representation whose effectiveness is asserted via experiments rather than derived from external benchmarks.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Resource allocation on hypergraphs yields continuous proximity values that better reflect node-hyperedge relationships than binary indicators
    Invoked as the basis for the proposed matrix in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Proximity matrix no independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify continuous proximity between nodes and hyperedges
    New matrix introduced to replace binary incidence matrix

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5460 in / 1099 out tokens · 30599 ms · 2026-05-10T00:38:10.868376+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Kauffman SA. 1996. At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press

    1996

  2. [2]

    Barabási AL. 2007. The architecture of complexity. IEEE Control Systems Magazine . 27(4): 33 ⚶42

    2007

  3. [3]

    Hidalgo CA, Balland PA, Boschma R, Delgado M, Feldman M, Frenken K, Glaeser E, He C, Kogler D, Morrison A, Neffke F, Rigby D, Stern S, Zheng S, Zhu S. 2018. The principle of relatedness. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Complex Systems . (Springer Press) pp. 451 ⚶457

    2018

  4. [4]

    Barabási AL. 2016. Network Science. Cambridge University Press

    2016

  5. [5]

    Newman MEJ. 2018. Networks. Oxford University Press

    2018

  6. [6]

    Yoon S, Song H, Shin K, Yi Y. 2020. How much and when do we need higher-order information in hypergraphs? A case study on hyperedge prediction. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2020 . (ACM Press) pp. 2627 ⚶2633. Mining Hypergraph via Proximity Matrix 17

    2020

  7. [7]

    Bian J, Zhou T, Bi Y. 2025. Unveiling the role of higher-order interactions via stepwise reduction. Communications Physics . 8: 228

    2025

  8. [8]

    Battiston F, Cencetti G, Iacopini I, Latora V, Lucas M, Patania A, Young JG, Petri G. 2020. Networks beyond pairwise interactions: structure and dynamics. Physics Reports. 874: 1 ⚶92

    2020

  9. [9]

    Battiston F, Amico E, Barrat A, Bianconi G, Ferraz de Arruda G, Franceschiello B, Iacopini I, Kéfi S, Latora V, Moreno Y, Murray MM, Peixoto TP, Vaccarino F, Petri G. 2021. The physics of higher-order interactions in complex systems. Nature Physics . 17: 1093 ⚶1098

    2021

  10. [10]

    Battiston F, Petri G. 2022. Higher-order Systems. Springer Press

    2022

  11. [11]

    Bianconi G. 2021. Higher-order Networks. Cambridge University Press

    2021

  12. [12]

    Bick C, Gross E, Harrington HA, Schaub MT. 2023. What are higher-order networks? SIAM Review . 65(3): 686 ⚶731

    2023

  13. [13]

    Rehman SU, Khan AU, Fong S. 2012. Graph mining: A survey of graph mining techniques. In Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Digital Information Management . (IEEE Press) pp. 88 ⚶92

    2012

  14. [14]

    Lü L, Zhou T. 2011. Link prediction in complex networks: A survey. Physica A . 390(6): 1150 ⚶1170

    2011

  15. [15]

    Zhou T. 2021. Progresses and challenges in link prediction. iScience. 24(11): 103217

    2021

  16. [16]

    Lü L, Chen D, Ren X, Zhang Q, Zhang Y, Zhou T. 2016. Vital nodes identification in complex networks. Physics Reports. 650: 1 ⚶63

    2016

  17. [17]

    Chen D, Chen J, Zhang X, Jia Q, Liu X, Sun Y, Lü L, Yu W. 2025. Critical nodes identification in complex networks: A survey. Complex Engineering Systems . 5: 11

    2025

  18. [18]

    Newman MEJ. 2006. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 103(23): 8577 ⚶8582

    2006

  19. [19]

    Fortunato S. 2010. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports. 486(3 ⚶5): 75 ⚶174

    2010

  20. [20]

    Csermely P, Korcsmáros T, Kiss HJM, London G, Nussinov R. 2013. Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: A novel paradigm of drug discovery: A comprehensive review. Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 138(3): 333 ⚶408

    2013

  21. [21]

    Lü L, Medo M, Yeung CH, Zhang Y, Zhang Z, Zhou T. 2012. Recommender systems. Physics Reports. 519: 1 ⚶49

    2012

  22. [22]

    Wang W, Zhang Q, Zhou T. 2012. Evaluating network models: A likelihood analysis. Europhysics Letters. 98(2): 28004

    2012

  23. [23]

    Chaharborj SS, Nabi KN, Feng KL, Chaharborj SS, Phang PS. 2022. Controlling COVID-19 transmission with isolation of influential nodes. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals . 159: 112035

    2022

  24. [24]

    Bi Y, Wang P. 2022. Exploring drought-responsive crucial genes in Sorghum. iScience. 25(11): 105347. 18 Hypergraph Mining via Proximity Matrix

    2022

  25. [25]

    Tang J, Zhang J, Yao L, Li J, Zhang L, Su Z. 2008. ArnetMiner: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . (ACM Press) pp. 990 ⚶998

    2008

  26. [26]

    Antelmi A, Cordasco G, Polato M, Scarano V, Spagnuolo C, Yang D. 2023. A survey on hypergraph representation learning. ACM Computing Surveys . 56(1): 1 ⚶38

    2023

  27. [27]

    Tian H, Zafarani R. 2024. Higher-order networks representation and learning: A survey. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter . 26(1): 1 ⚶18

    2024

  28. [28]

    Lee G, Bu F, Eliassi-Rad T, Shin K. 2025. A survey on hypergraph mining: Patterns, tools, and generators. ACM Computing Surveys . 57(8): 1 ⚶36

    2025

  29. [29]

    Zhang M, Cui Z, Jiang S, Chen Y. 2018. Beyond link prediction: predicting hyperlinks in adjacency space. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . (AAAI Press) pp. 4430 ⚶4437

    2018

  30. [30]

    Benson AR, Abebe R, Schaub MT, Adbabaie A, Kleinberg J. 2018. Simplicial closure and higher-order link prediction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 115(48): E11221 ⚶E11230

    2018

  31. [31]

    Kumar T, Darwin K, Parthasarathy S, Ravindran B. 2020. HPRA: Hyperedge prediction using resource allocation. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Web Science . (ACM Press) pp. 135 ⚶143

    2020

  32. [32]

    Contisciani M, Battiston F, De Bacco C. 2022. Inference of hyperedges and overlapping communities in hypergraphs. Nature Communications. 13: 7229

    2022

  33. [33]

    Chen C, Liu Y. 2023. A survey on hyperlink prediction. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems. 35(11): 15034 ⚶15050

    2023

  34. [34]

    Deng Z, Zhou T, Bi Y. 2025. Hard negative sampling in hyperedge prediction. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering . 13: 4833-4846

    2025

  35. [35]

    Zhu J, Zhu J, Ghosh S, Wu W, Yuan J. 2018. Social influence maximization in hypergraph in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering . 6(4): 801 ⚶811

    2018

  36. [36]

    Tudisco F, Higham DJ. 2021. Node and edge nonlinear eigenvector centrality for hypergraphs. Communications Physics . 4: 201

    2021

  37. [37]

    Antelmi A, Cordasco G, Spagnuolo C, Szufel P. 2021. Social influence maximization in hypergraphs. Entropy. 23(7): 796

    2021

  38. [38]

    Hu F, Tian K, Zhang Z. 2023. Identifying vital nodes in hypergraphs based on Von Neumann entropy. Entropy. 25(9): 1263

    2023

  39. [39]

    Xie X, Zhan X, Zhang Z, Liu C. 2023. Vital node identification in hypergraphs via gravity model. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science . 33(1): 013104

    2023

  40. [40]

    Xie M, Zhan X, Liu C, Zhang Z. 2023. An efficient adaptive degree-based heuristic algorithm for influence maximization in hypergraphs. Information Processing and Management . 60(2): 103161. Mining Hypergraph via Proximity Matrix 19

    2023

  41. [41]

    Zeng Y, Huang Y, Ren X, Lü L. 2024. Identifying vital nodes through augmented random walks on higher-order networks. Information Sciences . 679: 121067

    2024

  42. [42]

    Zhang R, Wei T, Sun Y, Pei S. 2024. Influence maximization based on simplicial contagion models. Physica A . 645: 129842

    2024

  43. [43]

    Sun Y, Wu J, Song N, Lin T, Li L, Li D. 2025. Deep reinforcement learning-based influence maximization for heterogeneous hypergraphs. Physica A . 660: 130361

    2025

  44. [44]

    Li P, Milenkovic O. 2017. Inhomogeneous hypergraph clustering with applications. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . (ACM Press) pp. 2305-2315

    2017

  45. [45]

    Kamiński B, Poulin V, Prałat P, Szufel P, Théberge F. 2019. Clustering via hypergraph modularity. PLoS ONE . 14(11): e0224307

    2019

  46. [46]

    Ahn K, Lee K, Suh C. 2019. Community recovery in hypergraphs. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 65(10): 6561 ⚶6579

    2019

  47. [47]

    Kumar T, Vaidyanathan S, Ananthapadmanabhan H, Parthasarathy S, Ravindran B. 2020. Hypergraph clustering by iteratively reweighted modularity maximization. Applied Network Science . 5: 52

    2020

  48. [48]

    Yuan M, Liu R, Feng Y, Shang Z. 2022. Testing community structure for hypergraphs. The Annals of Statistics. 50(1): 147 ⚶169

    2022

  49. [49]

    Chodrow P, Eikmeier N, Haddock J. 2023. Nonbacktracking spectral clustering of nonuniform hypergraphs. SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science . 5(2): 251 ⚶279

    2023

  50. [50]

    Ruggeri N, Contisciani M, Battiston F, De Bacco C. 2023. Community detection in large hypergraphs. Science Advances. 9(28): eadg9159

    2023

  51. [51]

    Kovács B, Benedek B, Palla G. 2025. Community detection in hypergraphs through hyperedge percolation. Scientific Reports. 15: 36032

    2025

  52. [52]

    Chen B, Li F, Chen S, Hu R, Chen L. 2017. Link prediction based on non-negative matrix factorization. PLoS ONE . 12(8): e0182968

    2017

  53. [53]

    Pech R, Hao D, Pan L, Cheng H, Zhou T. 2017. Link prediction via matrix completion. Europhysics Letters. 117(3): 38002

    2017

  54. [54]

    Bonacich P. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology . 92(5): 1170⚶1182

    1987

  55. [55]

    Estrada E, Rodríguez-Velázquez JA. 2005. Subgraph centrality in complex networks. Physical Review E. 71(5): 056103

    2005

  56. [56]

    Newman MEJ. 2013. Spectral methods for community detection and graph partitioning. Physical Review E . 88(4): 042822

    2013

  57. [57]

    Sarkar S, Dong A. 2011. Community detection in graphs using singular value decomposition. Physical Review E . 83(4): 046114. 20 Hypergraph Mining via Proximity Matrix

    2011

  58. [58]

    Chung FRK. 1993. The Laplacian of a hypergraph. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science . 10: 21 ⚶36

    1993

  59. [59]

    Nurisso M, Morandini M, Lucas M, Vaccarino F, Gili T, Petri G. 2025. Higher-order Laplacian renormalization. Nature Physics . 21: 661-668

    2025

  60. [60]

    Kook Y, Ko J, Shin K. 2020. Evolution of real-world hypergraphs: Patterns and models without oracles. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining . (IEEE Press) pp. 272⚶281

    2020

  61. [61]

    Berge C. 1989. Hypergraphs: Combinatorics of Finite Sets. Elsevier Press

    1989

  62. [62]

    Bretto A. 2013. Hypergraph Theory: An Introduction. Springer Press

    2013

  63. [63]

    Ou Q, Jin Y, Zhou T, Wang B, Yin B. 2007. Power-law strength-degree correlation from resource- allocation dynamics on weighted networks. Physical Review E . 75(2): 021102

    2007

  64. [64]

    Zhou T, Ren J, Medo M, Zhang Y. 2007. Bipartite network projection and personal recommendation. Physical Review E . 76(4): 046115

    2007

  65. [65]

    Zhou T, Lü L, Zhang Y. 2009. Predicting missing links via local information. The European Physical Journal B . 71(4): 623-630

    2009

  66. [66]

    Zhou T, Kuscsik Z, Liu J, Medo M, Wakeling JR, Zhang Y. 2010. Solving the apparent diversity- accuracy dilemma of recommender systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 107(10): 4511-4515

    2010

  67. [67]

    Yin H, Benson AR, Leskovec J, Gleich DF. 2017. Local higher-order graph clustering. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . (ACM Press) pp. 555-564

    2017

  68. [68]

    Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C. 2007. Graph evolution: Densification and shrinking diameters. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data . 1(1): 2-es

    2007

  69. [69]

    Fowler JH. 2006. Connecting the congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis . 14(4): 456-487

    2006

  70. [70]

    Mastrandrea R, Fournet J, Barrat A. 2015. Contact patterns in a high school: A comparison between data collected using wearable sensors, contact diaries and friendship surveys. PLoS ONE . 10(9): e0136497

    2015

  71. [71]

    King ZA, Lu J, Dräger A, Miller P, Federowicz S, Lerman JA, Ebrahim A, Palsson BO, Lewis NE. 2015. BiGG models: A platform for integrating, standardizing and sharing genome-scale models. Nucleic Acids Research. 44(D1): D515-D522

    2015

  72. [72]

    Sen P, Namata G, Bilgic M, Getoor L, Galligher B, Eliassi-Rad T. 2008. Collective classification in network data. AI Magazine . 29(3): 93-103

    2008

  73. [73]

    Chodrow PS, Veldt N, Benson AR. 2021. Generative hypergraph clustering: From blockmodels to modularity. Science Advances. 7(28): eabh1303. Mining Hypergraph via Proximity Matrix 21

    2021

  74. [74]

    StehléJ, Voirin N, Barrat A, Cattuto C, Isella L, Pinton JF, Quaggiotto M, Van den Broeck W, Régis C, Lina B, Vanhems P. 2011. High-resolution measurements of face-to-face contact patterns in a primary school. PLoS ONE . 6(8): e23176

    2011

  75. [75]

    Stewart C III, Woon J. 2017. Congressional Committee Assignments, 103rd to 114th Congresses, 1993-2017: Senate . Dataset

    2017

  76. [76]

    Stewart C III, Woon J. 2017. Congressional Committee Assignments, 103rd to 114th Congresses, 1993-2017: House . Dataset

    2017

  77. [77]

    Patil P, Sharma G, Murty MN. 2020. Negative sampling for hyperlink prediction in networks. In Proceedings of Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . (Springer Press) pp. 607-619

    2020

  78. [78]

    Hwang H, Lee S, Park C, Shin K. 2022. AHP: Learning to negative sample for hyperedge prediction. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . (ACM Press) pp. 2237-2242

    2022

  79. [79]

    Zhou T. 2023. Discriminating abilities of threshold-free evaluation metrics in link prediction. Physica A. 615: 128529

    2023

  80. [80]

    Jiao X, Wan S, Liu Q, Bi Y, Lee Y, Xu E, Hao D, Zhou T. 2024. Comparing discriminating abilities of evaluation metrics in link prediction. Journal of Physics: Complexity . 5: 025014

    2024

Showing first 80 references.