2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.patrec.2010.01.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clustering based on random graph model embedding vertex features

Abstract: Large datasets with interactions between objects are common to numerous scientific fields (i.e. social science, internet, biology. . . ). The interactions naturally define a graph and a common way to explore or summarize such dataset is graph clustering. Most techniques for clustering graph vertices just use the topology of connections ignoring informations in the vertices features. In this paper, we provide a clustering algorithm exploiting both types of data based on a statistical model with latent structure… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, we confined ourselves to a well-known artificial dataset, called ZAV dataset. ZAV benchmark dataset proposed by Zanghi et al (2010) is a type of computer-generated dataset. This dataset includes nodes with their community labels, interactions, and integer attributes.…”
Section: Datasets and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, we confined ourselves to a well-known artificial dataset, called ZAV dataset. ZAV benchmark dataset proposed by Zanghi et al (2010) is a type of computer-generated dataset. This dataset includes nodes with their community labels, interactions, and integer attributes.…”
Section: Datasets and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Current dynamic network models (Robins and Pattison, 2001;Xu and Hero, 2013;Xing et al, 2010;Sarkar and Moore, 2005) raise open questions about coherency, flexibility, theoretical properties and computational tractability. Contributions considering edge-specific covariate effects are available in static settings (see e.g., Snijders et al, 2006;Zanghi et al, 2010;Hoff et al, 2002) and developments in the longitudinal framework have been recently explored (Snijders, 2005;Cranmer and Desmarais, 2011;Ward et al, 2013). Such approaches inherit the drawbacks of the dynamic network models they seek to generalize, with only Ward et al (2013) allowing the edge covariate parameters to vary over time via a sequential estimating approach, which does not borrow dynamic information efficiently, and fails to properly propagate uncertainty.…”
Section: Relevant Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Zanghi et al [2010] proposed a probabilistic model based on a similar generative process to ours. It can be treated as an instance of GBAGC for unweighted edges and continuous attributes, except that it does not take a Bayesian treatment but treats model parameters as fixed values.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%