skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

Title: N2N: Network Derivative Mining
Network mining plays a pivotal role in many high-impact application domains, including information retrieval, healthcare, social network analysis, security and recommender systems. State-of-the-art offers a wealth of sophisticated network mining algorithms, many of which have been widely adopted in real-world with superior empirical performance. Nonetheless, they often lack effective and efficient ways to characterize how the results of a given mining task relate to the underlying network structure. In this paper, we introduce network derivative mining problem. Given the input network and a specific mining algorithm, network derivative mining finds a derivative network whose edges measure the influence of the corresponding edges of the input network on the mining results. We envision that network derivative mining could be beneficial in a variety of scenarios, ranging from explainable network mining, adversarial network mining, sensitivity analysis on network structure, active learning, learning with side information to counterfactual learning on networks. We propose a generic framework for network derivative mining from the optimization perspective and provide various instantiations for three classic network mining tasks, including ranking, clustering, and matrix completion. For each mining task, we develop effective algorithm for constructing the derivative network based on influence function analysis, with numerous optimizations to ensure more » a linear complexity in both time and space. Extensive experimental evaluation on real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework and algorithms. « less
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1947135 1715385 1651203 2003924
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10159171
Journal Name:
CIKM
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
861 to 870
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , KDD)
    Nowadays, large-scale graph data is being generated in a variety of real-world applications, from social networks to co-authorship networks, from protein-protein interaction networks to road traffic networks. Many existing works on graph mining focus on the vertices and edges, with the first-order Markov chain as the underlying model. They fail to explore the high-order network structures, which are of key importance in many high impact domains. For example, in bank customer personally identifiable information (PII) networks, the star structures often correspond to a set of synthetic identities; in financial transaction networks, the loop structures may indicate the existence of money laundering. In this paper, we focus on mining user-specified high-order network structures and aim to find a structure-rich subgraph which does not break many such structures by separating the subgraph from the rest. A key challenge associated with finding a structure-rich subgraph is the prohibitive computational cost. To address this problem, inspired by the family of local graph clustering algorithms for efficiently identifying a low-conductance cut without exploring the entire graph, we propose to generalize the key idea to model high-order network structures. In particular, we start with a generic definition of high-order conductance, and define the high-order diffusion core,more »which is based on a high-order random walk induced by user-specified high-order network structure. Then we propose a novel High-Order Structure-Preserving LOcal Cut (HOSPLOC) algorithm, which runs in polylogarithmic time with respect to the number of edges in the graph. It starts with a seed vertex and iteratively explores its neighborhood until a subgraph with a small high-order conductance is found. Furthermore, we analyze its performance in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. The experimental results on both synthetic graphs and real graphs demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed HOSPLOC algorithm.« less
  2. ; ; ; ( , Proc. of the 18th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM-2018))
    Attributed network embedding aims to learn lowdimensional vector representations for nodes in a network, where each node contains rich attributes/features describing node content. Because network topology structure and node attributes often exhibit high correlation, incorporating node attribute proximity into network embedding is beneficial for learning good vector representations. In reality, large-scale networks often have incomplete/missing node content or linkages, yet existing attributed network embedding algorithms all operate under the assumption that networks are complete. Thus, their performance is vulnerable to missing data and suffers from poor scalability. In this paper, we propose a Scalable Incomplete Network Embedding (SINE) algorithm for learning node representations from incomplete graphs. SINE formulates a probabilistic learning framework that separately models pairs of node-context and node-attribute relationships. Different from existing attributed network embedding algorithms, SINE provides greater flexibility to make the best of useful information and mitigate negative effects of missing information on representation learning. A stochastic gradient descent based online algorithm is derived to learn node representations, allowing SINE to scale up to large-scale networks with high learning efficiency. We evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of SINE through extensive experiments on real-world networks. Experimental results confirm that SINE outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in various tasks, includingmore »node classification, node clustering, and link prediction, under settings with missing links and node attributes. SINE is also shown to be scalable and efficient on large-scale networks with millions of nodes/edges and high-dimensional node features.« less
  3. ; ; ; ; ( , CIKM)
    Network embedding, which learns the low-dimensional representations of nodes, has gained significant research attention. Despite its superior empirical success, often measured by the prediction performance of downstream tasks (e.g., multi-label classification), it is unclear why a given embedding algorithm outputs the specific node representations, and how the resulting node representations relate to the structure of the input network. In this paper, we propose to discern the edge influence as the first step towards understanding skip-gram basd network embedding methods. For this purpose, we propose an auditing framework NEAR, whose key part includes two algorithms (NEAR-ADD and NEAR-DEL) to effectively and efficiently quantify the influence of each edge. Based on the algorithms, we further identify high-influential edges by exploiting the linkage between edge influence and the network structure. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed algorithms (NEAR-ADD and NEAR-DEL) are significantly faster (up to 2, 000×) than straightforward methods with little quality loss. Moreover, the proposed framework can efficiently identify the most influential edges for network embedding in the context of downstream prediction task and adversarial attacking.
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))
    Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less
  5. ; ; ( , The VLDB journal)
    Given a user-specified minimum degree threshold γ, a γ-quasi-clique is a subgraph where each vertex connects to at least γ fraction of the other vertices. Quasi-clique is a natural definition for dense structures, so finding large and hence statistically significant quasi-cliques is useful in applications such as community detection in social networks and discovering significant biomolecule structures and pathways. However, mining maximal quasi-cliques is notoriously expensive, and even a recent algorithm for mining large maximal quasi-cliques is flawed and can lead to a lot of repeated searches. This paper proposes a parallel solution for mining maximal quasi-cliques that is able to fully utilize CPU cores. Our solution utilizes divide and conquer to decompose the workloads into independent tasks for parallel mining, and we addressed the problem of (i) drastic load imbalance among different tasks and (ii) difficulty in predicting the task running time and the time growth with task subgraph size, by (a) using a timeout-based task decomposition strategy, and by (b) utilizing a priority task queue to schedule long-running tasks earlier for mining and decomposition to avoid stragglers. Unlike our conference version in PVLDB 2020 where the solution was built on a distributed graph mining framework called G-thinker, thismore »paper targets a single-machine multi-core environment which is more accessible to an average end user. A general framework called T-thinker is developed to facilitate the programming of parallel programs for algorithms that adopt divide and conquer, including but not limited to our quasi-clique mining algorithm. Additionally, we consider the problem of directly mining large quasi-cliques from dense parts of a graph, where we identify the repeated search issue of a recent method and address it using a carefully designed concurrent trie data structure. Extensive experiments verify that our parallel solution scales well with the number of CPU cores, achieving 26.68× runtime speedup when mining a graph with 3.77M vertices and 16.5M edges with 32 mining threads. Additionally, mining large quasi-cliques from dense parts can provide an additional speedup of up to 89.46×.« less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email