Autonomous Overlapping Community Detection in Temporal Networks: A Dynamic Bayesian Nonnegative Matrix Factorization Approach.

A wide variety of natural or artificial systems can be modeled as time-varying or temporal networks. To understand the structural and functional properties of these time-varying networked systems, it is desirable to detect and analyze the evolving community structure. In temporal networks, the identified communities should reflect the current snapshot network, and at the same time be similar to the communities identified in history or say the previous snapshot networks. Most of the existing approaches assume that the number of communities is known or can be obtained by some heuristic methods. This is unsuitable and complicated for most real world networks, especially temporal networks. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian probabilistic model, named Dynamic Bayesian Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (DBNMF), for automatic detection of overlapping communities in temporal networks. Our model can not only give the overlapping community structure based on the probabilistic memberships of nodes in each snapshot network but also automatically determines the number of communities in each snapshot network based on automatic relevance determination. Thereafter, a gradient descent algorithm is proposed to optimize the objective function of our DBNMF model. The experimental results using both synthetic datasets and real-world temporal networks demonstrate that the DBNMF model has superior performance compared with two widely used methods, especially when the number of communities is unknown and when the network is highly sparse

Bayesian stochastic blockmodeling

This chapter provides a self-contained introduction to the use of Bayesian inference to extract large-scale modular structures from network data, based on the stochastic blockmodel (SBM), as well as its degree-corrected and overlapping generalizations. We focus on nonparametric formulations that allow their inference in a manner that prevents overfitting, and enables model selection. We discuss aspects of the choice of priors, in particular how to avoid underfitting via increased Bayesian hierarchies, and we contrast the task of sampling network partitions from the posterior distribution with finding the single point estimate that maximizes it, while describing efficient algorithms to perform either one. We also show how inferring the SBM can be used to predict missing and spurious links, and shed light on the fundamental limitations of the detectability of modular structures in networks.Comment: 44 pages, 16 figures. Code is freely available as part of graph-tool at https://graph-tool.skewed.de . See also the HOWTO at https://graph-tool.skewed.de/static/doc/demos/inference/inference.htm

Graphs in machine learning: an introduction

Graphs are commonly used to characterise interactions between objects of interest. Because they are based on a straightforward formalism, they are used in many scientific fields from computer science to historical sciences. In this paper, we give an introduction to some methods relying on graphs for learning. This includes both unsupervised and supervised methods. Unsupervised learning algorithms usually aim at visualising graphs in latent spaces and/or clustering the nodes. Both focus on extracting knowledge from graph topologies. While most existing techniques are only applicable to static graphs, where edges do not evolve through time, recent developments have shown that they could be extended to deal with evolving networks. In a supervised context, one generally aims at inferring labels or numerical values attached to nodes using both the graph and, when they are available, node characteristics. Balancing the two sources of information can be challenging, especially as they can disagree locally or globally. In both contexts, supervised and un-supervised, data can be relational (augmented with one or several global graphs) as described above, or graph valued. In this latter case, each object of interest is given as a full graph (possibly completed by other characteristics). In this context, natural tasks include graph clustering (as in producing clusters of graphs rather than clusters of nodes in a single graph), graph classification, etc. 1 Real networks One of the first practical studies on graphs can be dated back to the original work of Moreno [51] in the 30s. Since then, there has been a growing interest in graph analysis associated with strong developments in the modelling and the processing of these data. Graphs are now used in many scientific fields. In Biology [54, 2, 7], for instance, metabolic networks can describe pathways of biochemical reactions [41], while in social sciences networks are used to represent relation ties between actors [66, 56, 36, 34]. Other examples include powergrids [71] and the web [75]. Recently, networks have also been considered in other areas such as geography [22] and history [59, 39]. In machine learning, networks are seen as powerful tools to model problems in order to extract information from data and for prediction purposes. This is the object of this paper. For more complete surveys, we refer to [28, 62, 49, 45]. In this section, we introduce notations and highlight properties shared by most real networks. In Section 2, we then consider methods aiming at extracting information from a unique network. We will particularly focus on clustering methods where the goal is to find clusters of vertices. Finally, in Section 3, techniques that take a series of networks into account, where each network i

Modeling heterogeneity in random graphs through latent space models: a selective review

We present a selective review on probabilistic modeling of heterogeneity in random graphs. We focus on latent space models and more particularly on stochastic block models and their extensions that have undergone major developments in the last five years