Homophily of Neighborhood in Graph Relational Classifier

  • Peter Vojtek
  • Mária Bieliková
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5901)


Quality of collective inference relational graph classifier depends on a degree of homophily in a classified graph. If we increase homophily in the graph, the classifier would assign class-membership to the instances with reduced error rate. We propose to substitute traditionally used graph neighborhood method (based on direct neighborhood of vertex) with local graph ranking algorithm (activation spreading), which provides wider set of neighboring vertices and their weights. We demonstrate that our approach increases homophily in the graph by inferring optimal homophily distribution of a binary Simple Relational Classifier in an unweighted graph. We validate this ability also experimentally using the Social Network of the Slovak Companies dataset.


Root Mean Square Error Spreading Activation Direct Neighborhood Neighborhood Method Basic Neighborhood 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Getoor, L., Segal, E., Taskar, B., Koller, D.: Probabilistic Models of Text and Link Structure for Hypertext Classification (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xue, G., Yu, Y., Shen, D., Yang, Q., Zeng, H., Chen, Z.: Reinforcing Web-Object Categorization through Interrelationships. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 12(2-3), 229–248 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macskassy, S.A., Provost, F.: Classification in Networked Data: A Toolkit and a Univariate Case Study. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 8, 935–983 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jensen, D., Neville, J., Gallagher, B.: Why Collective Inference Improves Relational Classification. In: KDD 2004: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 593–598. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson, M.O.: Average Distance, Diameter, and Clustering in Social Networks with Homophily. In: Papadimitriou, C., Zhang, S. (eds.) WINE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5385, pp. 4–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mcpherson, M., Lovin, L.S., Cook, J.M.: Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27(1), 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macskassy, S., Provost, F.: A Simple Relational Classifier. In: Workshop Multi-Relational Data Mining in conjunction with KDD 2003. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Preisach, C., Schmidt-Thieme, L.: Relational Ensemble Classification. In: ICDM 2006: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 499–509. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ceglowski, M., Coburn, A., Cuadrado, J.: Semantic Search of Unstructured Data Using Contextual Network Graphs (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Suchal, J.: On Finding Power Method in Spreading Activation Search. In: Geffert, V., Karhumäki, J., Bertoni, A., Preneel, B., Návrat, P., Bieliková, M. (eds.) SOFSEM 2008. LNCS, vol. 4910, pp. 124–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suchal, J., Vojtek, P.: Navigácia v sociálnej sieti obchodného registra SR. In: DATAKON, Srní, Czech Republic (2009) (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallagher, B., Tong, H., Eliassi-Rad, T., Faloutsos, C.: Using Ghost Edges for Classification in Sparsely Labeled Networks. In: KDD 2008: Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 256–264. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jensen, D., Neville, J.: Linkage and Autocorrelation Cause Feature Selection Bias in Relational Learning. In: ICML 2002: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 259–266. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, B.: Web Data Mining: Exploring Hyperlinks, Contents, and Usage Data, pp. 55–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korner, C., Wrobel, S.: Bias-Free Hypothesis Evaluation in Multirelational Domains. In: MRDM 2005: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Multi-Relational Mining, pp. 33–38. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Vojtek
    • 1
  • Mária Bieliková
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Informatics and Software Engineering Faculty of Informatics and Information TechnologiesSlovak University of TechnologyBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations