A Scalable Unsupervised Framework for Comparing Graph Embeddings

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12091)


Graph embedding is a transformation of vertices of a graph into a set of vectors. A good embedding should capture the graph topology, vertex-to-vertex relationship, and other relevant information about the graph, its subgraphs, and vertices. If these objectives are achieved, an embedding is a meaningful, understandable, and often compressed representations of a network. Unfortunately, selecting the best embedding is a challenging task and very often requires domain experts.

In the recent paper [1], we propose a “divergence score” that can be assigned to embeddings to help distinguish good ones from bad ones. This general framework provides a tool for an unsupervised graph embedding comparison. The complexity of the original algorithm was quadratic in the number of vertices. It was enough to show that the proposed method is feasible and has practical potential (proof-of-concept). In this paper, we improve the complexity of the original framework and design a scalable approximation algorithm. Moreover, we perform some detailed quality and speed benchmarks.


Graph embedding Geometric Chung-Lu Model 


  1. 1.
    Kamiński, B., Prałat, P., Théberge, F.: An unsupervised framework for comparing graph embeddings. J. Complex Networks, in press. 27 pGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman, M.: Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bianconi, G.: Interdisciplinary and physics challenges of network theory. EPL 111(5), 56001 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janssen, J.: Spatial models for virtual networks. In: Ferreira, F., Löwe, B., Mayordomo, E., Mendes Gomes, L. (eds.) CiE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6158, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poulin, V., Théberge, F.: Ensemble clustering for graphs. In: Aiello, L.M., Cherifi, C., Cherifi, H., Lambiotte, R., Lió, P., Rocha, L.M. (eds.) COMPLEX NETWORKS 2018. SCI, vol. 812, pp. 231–243. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zachary, W.W.: An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups. J. Anthropol. Res. 33, 452–473 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McInnes, L., Healy, J., Melville, J.: UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. pre-print arXiv:1802.03426 (2018)
  8. 8.
    Chung, F.R.K., Lu, L.: Complex Graphs and Networks. American Mathematical Society, Boston (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Girvan, M., Newman, M.E.: Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 7821–7826 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leskovec, J., Krevl, A.: SNAP datasets: Stanford large network dataset collection.
  11. 11.
    Kamiński, B., Prałat, P., Théberge, F.: Artificial benchmark for community detection (ABCD) – fast random graph model with community structure, pre-print arXiv:2002.00843 (2020)
  12. 12.
    Lancichinetti, A., Fortunato, S., Radicchi, F.: Benchmark graphs for testing community detection algorithms. Phys. Rev. E 78(4), 046110 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamiński, B., Poulin, V., Prałat, P., Szufel, P., Théberge, F.: Clustering via Hypergraph Modularity. PLoS ONE 14(11), e0224307 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Antelmi, A., et al.: Analyzing, exploring, and visualizing complex networks via hypergraphs using SimpleHypergraphs.jl. Internet Math. (2020). 32 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Analysis and Support Unit, SGH Warsaw School of EconomicsWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Tutte Institute for Mathematics and ComputingOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations