Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Urban delineation through the lens of commute networks: Leveraging graph embeddings to distinguish socioeconomic groups in cities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Self-supervised embeddings of census commute networks delineate urban communities with modularity on par with—and income separation sometimes exceeding—established modularity optimization methods.

desk verdict Solid application of GNN embeddings to census commute networks for urban delineation, but the headline comparison to COMBO rests on an unreported k-means cluster count and lacks uncertainty quantification. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11057 v1 pith:N3HO5ESA submitted 2025-07-15 cs.SI physics.soc-phstat.ML

Devashish Khulbe , Stanislav Sobolevsky This is my paper
classification cs.SIphysics.soc-phstat.ML
keywords urbandelineationcommunitydetectiongraphneuralnetworksnetworkembeddingscommutecensusmobilitydatasocioeconomicsegregationmodularity
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 sets out to show that a self-supervised graph neural network trained on census origin-destination commute flows can delineate meaningful urban communities. Across the 12 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, node embeddings of census tracts are clustered, and the resulting districts match the modularity of a leading modularity-optimization method and, in major cities, separate high- and low-income populations more sharply. If this holds, urban boundaries and socioeconomic segregation can be studied from public census data alone, without relying on proprietary cell-phone or social-media mobility records. The practical value is that the method is scalable, reusable, and available wherever censuses record workplace commutes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-layer graph neural network trained in a self-supervised way to reconstruct the adjacency matrix of the commute network, minimizing a log mean squared error over edge weights. Each census tract receives a low-dimensional embedding that encodes local and global connectivity, and k-means clustering of these embeddings produces the urban communities. The design separates the expensive representation-learning phase from clustering, which is why the same embeddings can be reused and why clustering the largest network takes milliseconds. A learnable-embedding MLP and positional and structural encodings serve as baselines showing that the GNN's neighborhood aggregation, not just pairwise signal, is what generates coherent, socioeconomically distinct districts.

What would settle it

Re-run the 12-city pipeline with a single pre-registered rule for choosing the number of communities, such as the value maximizing average silhouette on the GNN embeddings or the modularity profile, then compare modularity and J-S divergence against COMBO and SBM under that rule; if GNN no longer matches or beats the baselines, the claimed parity or superiority is an artifact of k selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a general-purpose, self-supervised GNN embedding of a commute network—one that learns by reconstructing the matrix of worker flows rather than by optimizing any community metric—produces urban delineations that are at least as good as, and in some cities better than, modularity-based community detection. The GNN-derived communities receive modularity scores close to COMBO's in all 12 cities (for example, 0.259 versus 0.27 in New York and 0.264 versus 0.275 in Chicago), while stochastic block model partitions fragment space and score lower. In socioeconomic terms, the highest- and lowest-income communities show clear divergence in median household income, with high-income communities consistently smaller and more concentrated, and in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles the GNN's income J-S divergence scores exceed COMBO's. The identified communities frequently cross official borough and county boundaries, indicating that commute behavior, not administrative lines, is shaping the partition.

Load-bearing premise

The paper never states how the number of communities per city (3 or 4) was chosen, so the fairness of comparing GNN, COMBO, and SBM rests on that unspecified choice not having been made to favor any method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Urban delineation becomes possible from public census data in any country with workplace-flow records, enabling consistent cross-city and cross-country comparisons.
  • Because commute-defined communities diverge from administrative boundaries, official district maps may be less aligned with functional urban structure than census commute flows suggest.
  • The consistent pattern of smaller, concentrated affluent communities and larger low-income communities gives planners a data-driven indicator of income segregation and mobility disadvantage.
  • Reusable embeddings make community delineation effectively free after training, cutting clustering time roughly 150-fold on the largest network and supporting repeated or longitudinal analyses.
  • The embedding approach can absorb other features or tasks, so delineation could be coupled with prediction or classification without rerunning community detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the GNN's edge-reconstruction objective is what produces the income separation, then enriching the reconstruction with socioeconomic attributes would likely sharpen or bias the delineation; a testable variant would compare embeddings trained on commute flows alone against flows plus income.
  • The method could be extended to track how income segregation changes over time by re-embedding and re-clustering successive releases of the same census commute data.
  • Because the number of communities per city is not selected by a documented rule, a sensitivity analysis varying k and measuring modularity and J-S divergence would reveal how much of the claimed parity depends on that free choice.
  • In smaller or more sprawling metropolitan areas with weaker commute coupling, the spatial cohesion of embedding clusters may degrade, making such cities a natural stress test for the method.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a self-supervised GNN-based embedding approach for delineating urban communities from census-derived commute networks. Node embeddings, learned by reconstructing the adjacency matrix of the commute graph, are clustered with k-means; the resulting partitions are evaluated against two established methods (COMBO modularity optimization and SBM) across 12 large U.S. metropolitan areas. The authors report that the GNN-based communities achieve modularity scores comparable to COMBO, and higher Jensen–Shannon divergence between the income distributions of the highest- and lowest-income communities in several cities, concluding that the method is 'at least as good, and in some cities, better' than traditional community detection. The paper also highlights the practical advantage of census-based mobility data over alternative sources.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a reproducible, publicly available-data alternative for urban regionalization and for exposing income segregation from mobility structure. Strengths include the use of census LODES data (with a Zenodo release), a self-supervised objective that avoids the direct use of income labels in training, and systematic comparison with two standard baselines. The computational-efficiency discussion is also a useful contribution. However, the validity of the headline comparison between GNN and COMBO currently rests on an unspecified procedure for choosing the number of communities k, and on point estimates without uncertainty quantification; these issues must be resolved before the claims can be independently verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods – Representation Learning; Table 2] The paper does not specify how the number of communities k is chosen for the k-means clustering of the GNN and VNN embeddings. In the Methods section, node embeddings are clustered with k-means, and Table 2 reports 3 or 4 communities per city, but no rule for selecting k is provided (the Introduction only says 'varying numbers of delineations for each area'). Since both modularity (Table 2) and J-S divergence (Table 3) depend on the scale of the partition, and since COMBO determines the number of communities endogenously, the comparison between GNN-based embeddings and COMBO is not well-defined unless the k-selection rule is stated. Please specify how k was set (e.g., equal to the number of COMBO/SBM communities, or chosen by an internal criterion) and include a sensitivity analysis over k to show that the reported results are robust.
  2. [Tables 2 and 3] Tables 2 and 3 present point estimates only, without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claimed advantage of GNN embeddings over COMBO is based on small differences in J-S divergence (e.g., New York 0.62 vs 0.61, Chicago 0.54 vs 0.49, Los Angeles 0.38 vs 0.34), while GNN modularity is slightly lower than COMBO in several cities (e.g., New York 0.259 vs 0.27, San Jose 0.188 vs 0.196). Without repeated runs across GNN training seeds and k-means initializations, or a statistical test, the conclusion that the method is 'at least as good and sometimes better' (Introduction, Conclusion) is not quantitatively supported. Adding uncertainty estimates for the partition metrics is necessary to sustain the headline claim.
  3. [Methods, Eq. (3); Results, training description] The training objective is described inconsistently. Eq. (3) defines the reconstruction loss as a plain MSE, but the Results section states that 'Graph representation learning models (VNN, GNN) were trained for 500 epochs with logMSE objective.' Since the loss function directly determines the learned embeddings, the exact form of the objective must be stated unambiguously (define logMSE if it is the actual loss, and correct Eq. (3) or the text). Without this, the experiments cannot be reproduced or verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The column 'Number of communities' is ambiguous: it appears to list a single value per city, but the text explicitly states that SBM produces more communities (and for Austin/San Antonio SBM yields one community). Please clarify which methods share the listed k and provide SBM's community counts.
  2. [Results – Community structures] The Results section says the PSE encodings were 'retrieved choosing appropriate embedding dimensionality for different metro regions,' but no details are given about which encodings (LE, SVD, random walk) were used, what dimensions were chosen, or where the PSE-derived communities are reported; Figure 2 and Tables 2–3 only cover SBM, COMBO, GNN, and VNN. Please clarify or remove the unsubstantiated PSE analysis.
  3. [Computational advantage] The reported 150-fold speedup compares COMBO runtime (4.8 s) with k-means clustering on embeddings (32 ms), but omits the one-time GNN training cost. Please report training time and frame the speedup as a one-time training versus repeated clustering distinction.
  4. [Throughout] The terms 'MLP' and 'VNN' are used interchangeably; please standardize the terminology for the baseline model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: income-based evaluation is external to the self-supervised embedding objective; the unreported k-selection rule is a verifiability gap, not an exhibited circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The GNN/VNN embeddings are trained self-supervised to reconstruct the commute adjacency matrix (Eq. 3), and no income labels enter the loss; median household income is used strictly as an external validation variable in the J-S divergence and median-income-delta comparisons (Table 3). The benchmark methods COMBO (ref. 40) and SBM (ref. 43) are independent of the embedding pipeline, and the modularity comparison (Table 2) evaluates the GNN against the very metric COMBO optimizes, so the reported near-parity is not constructed. The self-citations (refs. 7, 8, 22, 23) supply motivation — that commute structure and income are related — but the paper's load-bearing claim, that GNN-embedding clusters separate income groups, is measured against external census income data rather than derived from those citations, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. One issue is flagged but is not a circular step: the paper never states how the per-city community count (3 or 4, Table 2) is chosen for k-means on the embeddings, saying only 'with varying numbers of delineations for each area' (Introduction). If k were equated with COMBO's output count, the comparison is at matched scale; if k were chosen to optimize the reported metrics, the small 'better in some cities' J-S margins (NYC 0.62 vs 0.61, Chicago 0.54 vs 0.49, LA 0.38 vs 0.34) could shift. However, no passage in the paper exhibits such a reduction, so per the evidence standard this is a reproducibility/verifiability gap rather than an exhibited circularity. Score 1 reflects the absence of circularity with a minor qualifier from motivational self-citations.

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

The central claim rests on standard ML choices (k-means, GCN) and domain assumptions about data validity (LEHD commute flows, income as SES proxy). No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced. The main uncharged parameter is the cluster count per city, which is chosen by hand.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of clusters k per city = 3 or 4 per city (e.g., NYC 4, Chicago 3)
    The number of communities for k-means is not derived from the model or data; it appears chosen per city without stated criterion, and results are not tested for sensitivity to this choice.
  • GNN embedding dimension d
    Not specified in the text; the authors state 'appropriate embedding dimensionality for different metro regions' but give no values.
  • GNN training hyperparameters
    Hidden dimensions, optimizer, learning rate, and regularization are not provided; only epoch count (500) and loss (logMSE) are mentioned.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LEHD census commute flows are a comprehensive and unbiased representation of urban mobility
    The paper assumes census O-D commute data captures the relevant mobility structure, even though it only includes work commutes and excludes other trip types. Invoked in the Data overview and Methods sections.
  • domain assumption Median household income is a valid proxy for socioeconomic status
    Used to evaluate communities and to claim socioeconomic separation; standard in urban studies but not unequivocal. Invoked in the Data overview and Socioeconomic evaluation sections.
  • domain assumption A two-layer GNN trained with adjacency reconstruction produces embeddings that preserve community-relevant structure
    The architecture and loss are chosen without proof that they capture the structural features needed for good clustering; oversmoothing and hyperparameter sensitivity are not analyzed. Invoked in the Representation Learning section.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Urban delineation through the lens of commute networks: Leveraging graph embeddings to distinguish socioeconomic groups in cities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3HO5ESA

@misc{pith2026250711057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Urban delineation through the lens of commute networks: Leveraging graph embeddings to distinguish socioeconomic groups in cities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3HO5ESA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11057}
}
read the original abstract

Delineating areas within metropolitan regions stands as an important focus among urban researchers, shedding light on the urban perimeters shaped by evolving population dynamics. Applications to urban science are numerous, from facilitating comparisons between delineated districts and administrative divisions to informing policymakers of the shifting economic and labor landscapes. In this study, we propose using commute networks sourced from the census for the purpose of urban delineation, by modeling them with a Graph Neural Network (GNN) architecture. We derive low-dimensional representations of granular urban areas (nodes) using GNNs. Subsequently, nodes' embeddings are clustered to identify spatially cohesive communities in urban areas. Our experiments across the U.S. demonstrate the effectiveness of network embeddings in capturing significant socioeconomic disparities between communities in various cities, particularly in factors such as median household income. The role of census mobility data in regional delineation is also noted, and we establish the utility of GNNs in urban community detection, as a powerful alternative to existing methods in this domain. The results offer insights into the wider effects of commute networks and their use in building meaningful representations of urban regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of GNN communities and borough boundaries in NYC An inspection of the GNN-embedding derived communities in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Community structures resulting from 1. GNN-embedding based communities, 2. COMBO method [40] (bottom row), and 3. Stochastic Block Model (SBM). The GNN-derived community boundaries are similarly aligned to modularity optimization based COMBO. Notably, SBM’s results have more communities in all cities. Moreover, SBM-derived community structures are observed to be smaller and not spatially cohesive. Comparisons with c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GNN-embedding based communities – shown along with income distributions within each community. To further investigate inter-cluster differences, we analyze the distribution of a key socioeconomic indicator–median neighborhood income–across the identified communities. Median income is a widely recognized proxy for residents’ socioeconomic status and provides a meaningful basis for comparison. Our analysis shows that … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Communities are distinguished by their socioeconomic status – highest income density areas are captured by a community in most cities. Some cities – like Boston, Austin, and Dallas– have high-income areas lying in multiple different communities. Generally, the delineat…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Defining a city—delineating urban areas using cell-phone data

    Dong L, Duarte F, Duranton G, et al. Defining a city—delineating urban areas using cell-phone data. Nat Cities. 2024;1:117–125. doi:10.1038/s44284-023-00019-z

    doi:10.1038/s44284-023-00019-z 2024

  2. [2]

    Delineation of the Shanghai megacity region of China from a commuting perspective: Study based on cell phone network data in the Yangtze River Delta

    Li K, Niu X. Delineation of the Shanghai megacity region of China from a commuting perspective: Study based on cell phone network data in the Yangtze River Delta. Journal of Urban Planning and Development. 2021;147(3):04021022

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Detecting the regional delineation from a network of social media user interactions with spatial constraint: A case study of Shenzhen, China

    Jia T, Yu X, Shi W, et al. Detecting the regional delineation from a network of social media user interactions with spatial constraint: A case study of Shenzhen, China. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2019;531:121719

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Redrawing the map of Great Britain from a network of human interactions

    Ratti C, Sobolevsky S, Calabrese F, et al. Redrawing the map of Great Britain from a network of human interactions. PloS one. 2010;5(12):e14248

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Community detection in graphs

    Fortunato S. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports. 2010;486(3):75–174. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002 2010

  6. [6]

    The analysis and delimitation of Central Business District using network kernel density estimation

    Yu W, Ai T, Shao S. The analysis and delimitation of Central Business District using network kernel density estimation. Journal of Transport Geography. 2015;45:32–47

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Mobility Networks as a Predictor of Socioeconomic Status in Urban Systems

    Khulbe D, Belyi A, Mikeš O, Sobolevsky S. Mobility Networks as a Predictor of Socioeconomic Status in Urban Systems. In: International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Springer; 2023. p. 453–461

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Commute Networks as a Signature of Urban Socioeconomic Performance: Evaluating Mobility Structures with Deep Learning Models

    Khulbe D, Belyi A, Sobolevsky S. Commute Networks as a Signature of Urban Socioeconomic Performance: Evaluating Mobility Structures with Deep Learning Models; 2025. Available from:https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.04027

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    A Community Detection and Graph-Neural-Network-Based Link Prediction Approach for Scientific Literature

    Liu C, Han Y, Xu H, Yang S, Wang K, Su Y. A Community Detection and Graph-Neural-Network-Based Link Prediction Approach for Scientific Literature. Mathematics. 2024;12(3):369

    2024

  2. [10]

    Graph neural network inspired algorithm for unsupervised network community detection

    Sobolevsky S, Belyi A. Graph neural network inspired algorithm for unsupervised network community detection. Applied Network Science. 2022;7(1):63

    2022

  3. [11]

    Prediction of Urban Population-Facilities Interactions with Graph Neural Network

    Mishina M, et al. Prediction of Urban Population-Facilities Interactions with Graph Neural Network. In: Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA

  4. [12]

    Community detection in networks using graph embeddings

    Tandon A, Albeshri A, Thayananthan V, Alhalabi W, Radicchi F, Fortunato S. Community detection in networks using graph embeddings. Phys Rev E. 2021;103:022316. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.103.022316

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Urban delineation through a prism of intraday commute patterns

    Bogomolov Y, Belyi A, Sobolevsky S. Urban delineation through a prism of intraday commute patterns. Frontiers in Big Data. 2024;7. doi:10.3389/fdata.2024.1356116. September 3, 2025 15/18

    2024

  6. [14]

    Human mobility and socioeconomic status: Analysis of Singapore and Boston

    Xu Y, Belyi A, Bojic I, Ratti C. Human mobility and socioeconomic status: Analysis of Singapore and Boston. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 2018;72:51–67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.04.001

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Relying on the Census in Urban Social Science

    Logan JR. Relying on the Census in Urban Social Science. City & Community. 2018;17(3):540–549. doi:10.1111/cico.12331

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Land development, land use, and urban sprawl in Puerto Rico integrating remote sensing and population census data

    Martinuzzi S, Gould WA, Ramos González OM. Land development, land use, and urban sprawl in Puerto Rico integrating remote sensing and population census data. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;79(3):288–297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.014

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Validating the use of census data on education as a measure of socioeconomic status in an occupational cohort

    Cohen SS, Mumma MT, Ellis ED, and JDBJ. Validating the use of census data on education as a measure of socioeconomic status in an occupational cohort. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2022;98(4):587–592. doi:10.1080/09553002.2018.1549758

    2022

  10. [18]

    Use of Census-based Aggregate Variables to Proxy for Socioeconomic Group: Evidence from National Samples

    Geronimus AT, Bound J. Use of Census-based Aggregate Variables to Proxy for Socioeconomic Group: Evidence from National Samples. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1998;148(5):475–486. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009673

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Data, Snapshot Release S2023; 2023

    U S Census Bureau. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Data, Snapshot Release S2023; 2023. Computer file

    2023

  12. [20]

    Delineating geographical regions with networks of human interactions in an extensive set of countries

    Sobolevsky S, Szell M, Campari R, Courty T, Hawelka B, Ratti C. Delineating geographical regions with networks of human interactions in an extensive set of countries. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e81707. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0081707

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Uncovering space-independent communities in spatial networks

    Expert P, Evans TS, Blondel VD, Lambiotte R. Uncovering space-independent communities in spatial networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(19):7663–7668. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018962108

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Distance deterrence comparison in urban commute among different socioeconomic groups: A normalized linear piece-wise gravity model

    He M, Bogomolov Y, Khulbe D, Sobolevsky S. Distance deterrence comparison in urban commute among different socioeconomic groups: A normalized linear piece-wise gravity model. Journal of Transport Geography. 2023;113:103732. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103732

    2023

  15. [23]

    Impact of income on urban commute across major cities in US

    Bogomolov Y, He M, Khulbe D, Sobolevsky S. Impact of income on urban commute across major cities in US. Procedia Computer Science. 2021;193:325–332. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.10.033

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable graph transformer

    Rampášek L, Galkin M, Dwivedi VP, Luu AT, Wolf G, Beaini D. Recipe for a General, Powerful, Scalable graph transformer. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2022;35:14501–14515

    2022

  17. [25]

    A Generalization of Transformer Networks to Graphs

    Dwivedi VP, Bresson X. A Generalization of Transformer Networks to Graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:201209699. 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; 2021

    Ying C, Cai T, Luo S, Zheng S, Ke G, He D, et al. Do transformers really perform badly for graph representation? In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    The singular value decomposition: Its computation and some applications

    Klema V, Laub A. The singular value decomposition: Its computation and some applications. IEEE Transactions on automatic control. 1980;25(2):164–176. September 3, 2025 16/18

    1980

  20. [28]

    Implicit SVD for Graph Representation Learning

    Abu-El-Haija S, Mostafa H, Nassar M, Crespi V, Ver Steeg G, Galstyan A. Implicit SVD for Graph Representation Learning. In: Ranzato M, Beygelzimer A, Dauphin Y, Liang PS, Vaughan JW, editors. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 34. Curran Associates, Inc.; ...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Community detection in graphs using singular value decomposition

    Sarkar S, Dong A. Community detection in graphs using singular value decomposition. Physical Review E. 2011;83(4):046114

    2011

  22. [30]

    Learning 3d representations of molecular chirality with invariance to bond rotations

    Adams K, Pattanaik L, Coley CW. Learning 3d representations of molecular chirality with invariance to bond rotations. arXiv preprint arXiv:211004383. 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Rewiring with positional encodings for graph neural networks

    Brüel-Gabrielsson R, Yurochkin M, Solomon J. Rewiring with positional encodings for graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:220112674. 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Distance encoding: Design provably more powerful neural networks for graph representation learning

    Li P, Wang Y, Wang H, Leskovec J. Distance encoding: Design provably more powerful neural networks for graph representation learning. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 33; 2020. p. 4465–4478

    2020

  25. [33]

    Graph neural networks with learnable structural and positional representations

    Dwivedi VP, Luu AT, Laurent T, Bengio Y, Bresson X. Graph neural networks with learnable structural and positional representations. In: International Conference on Learning Representations; 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    SUME: Semantic-enhanced Urban Mobility Network Embedding for User Demographic Inference

    Xu F, Lin Z, Xia T, Guo D, Li Y. SUME: Semantic-enhanced Urban Mobility Network Embedding for User Demographic Inference. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2020;4(3):98. doi:10.1145/3411807

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    NodeSense2Vec: Spatiotemporal Context-Aware Network Embedding for Heterogeneous Urban Mobility Data

    Chandra DK, Leopold J, Fu Y. NodeSense2Vec: Spatiotemporal Context-Aware Network Embedding for Heterogeneous Urban Mobility Data. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data); 2021. p. 2884–2893

    2021

  28. [36]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Kipf TN, Welling M. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:160902907. 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:181000826

    Xu K, Hu W, Leskovec J, Jegelka S. How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:181000826. 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning

    Li Q, Han Z, Wu X. Deeper insights into graph convolutional networks for semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 32; 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs

    Hamilton WL, Ying R, Leskovec J. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In: Advances in neural information processing systems. vol. 30; 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    General optimization technique for high-quality community detection in complex networks

    Sobolevsky S, Campari R, Belyi A, Ratti C. General optimization technique for high-quality community detection in complex networks. Physical Review E. 2014;90(1):012811

    2014

  33. [41]

    Community Detection via Maximization of Modularity and Its Variants

    Chen M, Kuzmin K, Szymanski BK. Community Detection via Maximization of Modularity and Its Variants. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems. 2014;1(1):46–65. doi:10.1109/TCSS.2014.2307458

    2014

  34. [42]

    A review of stochastic block models and extensions for graph clustering

    Lee C, Wilkinson DJ. A review of stochastic block models and extensions for graph clustering. Applied Network Science. 2019;4(1):122. doi:10.1007/s41109-019-0232-2. September 3, 2025 17/18

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Efficient Monte Carlo and greedy heuristic for the inference of stochastic block models

    Peixoto TP. Efficient Monte Carlo and greedy heuristic for the inference of stochastic block models. Phys Rev E. 2014;89:012804. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.89.012804

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    On the Impact of Income, Age, and Travel Distance on the Value of Time

    Fournier N, Christofa E. On the Impact of Income, Age, and Travel Distance on the Value of Time. Transportation Research Record. 2020;2675(3):122–135. doi:10.1177/0361198120966603

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Information theoretic network approach to socioeconomic correlations

    Kirkley A. Information theoretic network approach to socioeconomic correlations. Physical Review Research. 2020;2(4):043212

    2020

  38. [46]

    The use of Csiszár’s divergence to assess dissimilarities of income distributions of EU countries

    Oczki J, Wędrowska E. The use of Csiszár’s divergence to assess dissimilarities of income distributions of EU countries. Quantitative Methods in Economics. 2014;15(2):167–176

    2014

  39. [47]

    Income distributions and decomposable divergence measures

    Magdalou B, Nock R. Income distributions and decomposable divergence measures. Journal of Economic Theory. 2011;146(6):2440–2454. September 3, 2025 18/18

    2011

  40. [2023]

    13956 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science

    vol. 13956 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham; 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.