skip to main content
10.1145/3292500.3330948acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Representation Learning Framework for Property Graphs

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Representation learning on graphs, also called graph embedding, has demonstrated its significant impact on a series of machine learning applications such as classification, prediction and recommendation. However, existing work has largely ignored the rich information contained in the properties (or attributes) of both nodes and edges of graphs in modern applications, e.g., those represented by property graphs. To date, most existing graph embedding methods either focus on plain graphs with only the graph topology, or consider properties on nodes only. We propose PGE, a graph representation learning framework that incorporates both node and edge properties into the graph embedding procedure. PGE uses node clustering to assign biases to differentiate neighbors of a node and leverages multiple data-driven matrices to aggregate the property information of neighbors sampled based on a biased strategy. PGE adopts the popular inductive model for neighborhood aggregation. We provide detailed analyses on the efficacy of our method and validate the performance of PGE by showing how PGE achieves better embedding results than the state-of-the-art graph embedding methods on benchmark applications such as node classification and link prediction over real-world datasets.

References

  1. Nitin Agarwal, Huan Liu, Sudheendra Murthy, Arunabha Sen, and Xufei Wang. A social identity approach to identify familiar strangers in a social network. In ICWSM, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amr Ahmed, Nino Shervashidze, Shravan M. Narayanamurthy, Vanja Josifovski, and Alexander J. Smola. Distributed large-scale natural graph factorization. In WWW, pages 37--48, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Eytan Bakshy, Itamar Rosenn, Cameron Marlow, and Lada A. Adamic. The role of social networks in information diffusion. In WWW, pages 519--528, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mauro Barone and Michele Coscia. Birds of A feather scam together: Trustworthiness homophily in A business network. Social Networks, 54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Yoshua Bengio, Aaron C. Courville, and Pascal Vincent. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. PAMI, 35:1798--1828, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Smriti Bhagat, Graham Cormode, and S. Muthukrishnan. Node classification in social networks. In Social network datanalytics, pages 115--148. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Michael M. Bronstein, Joan Bruna, Yann LeCun, Arthur Szlam, and Pierre Vandergheynst. Geometric deep learning: Going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Shaosheng Cao, Wei Lu, and Qiongkai Xu. Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information. In CIKM, pages 891--900, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Shaosheng Cao, Wei Lu, and Qiongkai Xu. Deep neural networks for learning graph representations. In AAAI, pages 1145--1152, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Haochen Chen, Bryan Perozzi, Yifan Hu, and Steven Skiena. HARP: hierarchical representation learning for networks. In AAAI, pages 2127--2134, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jianfei Chen, Jun Zhu, and Le Song. Stochastic training of graph convolutional networks with variance reduction. In ICML, pages 941--949, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Martin Ester, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Jörg Sander, and Xiaowei Xu. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In SIGKDD, pages 226--231, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Santo Fortunato. Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486:75--174, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Thomas Gärtner, Tamás Horváth, and Stefan Wrobel. Graph kernels. In Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining, pages 579--581. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Palash Goyal and Emilio Ferrara. Graph embedding techniques, applications, and performance: A survey. KBS, 151:78--94, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In SIGKDD, pages 855--864, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. William L. Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Representation learning on graphs: Methods and applications. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 40:52--74, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. William L. Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In NIPS, pages 1024--1034, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Keith Henderson, Brian Gallagher, Tina Eliassi-Rad, Hanghang Tong, Sugato Basu, Leman Akoglu, Danai Koutra, Christos Faloutsos, and Lei Li. Rolx: Structural role extraction & mining in large graphs. In SIGKDD, pages 1231--1239, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Geoffrey E. Hinton and Ruslan R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313:504--507, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In ICLR, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. CoRR, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Variational graph auto-encoders. CoRR, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. David Liben-Nowell and Jon M. Kleinberg. The link-prediction problem for social networks. JASIST, 58:1019--1031, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. James MacQueen. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, volume 1, pages 281--297, 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Gregory S. Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS, pages 3111--3119, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Galileo Namata, Ben London, Lise Getoor, Bert Huang, and UMD EDU. Querydriven active surveying for collective classification. In MLG, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Maximilian Nickel, Kevin Murphy, Volker Tresp, and Evgeniy Gabrilovich. A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mingdong Ou, Peng Cui, Jian Pei, Ziwei Zhang, and Wenwu Zhu. Asymmetric transitivity preserving graph embedding. In SIGKDD, pages 1105--1114, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations. In SIGKDD, pages 701--710, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Bryan Perozzi, Vivek Kulkarni, and Steven Skiena. Walklets: Multiscale graph embeddings for interpretable network classification. CoRR, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Dragomir R. Radev, Hong Qi, HarrisWu, andWeiguo Fan. Evaluating web-based question answering systems. In LREC, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Yutaka Sasaki. The truth of the f-measure. Teach Tutor Mater, 1:1--5, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Michael Sejr Schlichtkrull, Thomas N. Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne van den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In ESWC, pages 593--607, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Chris Stark, Bobby-Joe Breitkreutz, Teresa Reguly, Lorrie Boucher, Ashton Breitkreutz, and Mike Tyers. Biogrid: A general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Research, 34:535--539, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Daixin Wang, Peng Cui, and Wenwu Zhu. Structural deep network embedding. In SIGKDD, pages 1225--1234, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jaewon Yang and Jure Leskovec. Overlapping communities explain coreperiphery organization of networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, 102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Representation Learning Framework for Property Graphs

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

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

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              KDD '19: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
              July 2019
              3305 pages
              ISBN:9781450362016
              DOI:10.1145/3292500

              Copyright © 2019 ACM

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

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 25 July 2019

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              KDD '19 Paper Acceptance Rate110of1,200submissions,9%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

              Upcoming Conference

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader