PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Unsupervised Learning via Network-Aware Embeddings

Anne Sophie Riis Damstrup, Sofie Tosti Madsen, Michele Coscia

self/semi-supervised learninggraph neural networksgraph embeddingsnode attributesdata clustering
18.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
21.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)
18.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Introduce the new problem of clustering node attributes in a network via node attribute embeddings that take into account the network structure

Abstract

Data clustering, the task of grouping observations according to their similarity, is a key component of unsupervised learning -- with real world applications in diverse fields such as biology, medicine, and social science. Often in these fields the data comes with complex interdependencies between the dimensions of analysis, for instance the various characteristics and opinions people can have live on a complex social network. Current clustering methods are ill-suited to tackle this complexity: deep learning can approximate these dependencies, but not take their explicit map as the input of the analysis. In this paper, we aim at fixing this blind spot in the unsupervised learning literature. We can create network-aware embeddings by estimating the network distance between numeric node attributes via the generalized Euclidean distance. Differently from all methods in the literature that we know of, we do not cluster the nodes of the network, but rather its node attributes. In our experiments we show that having these network embeddings is always beneficial for the learning task; that our method scales to large networks; and that we can actually provide actionable insights in applications in a variety of fields such as marketing, economics, and political science. Our method is fully open source and data and code are available to reproduce all results in the paper.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 38 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 46% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)