Supervised neural networks for the classification of structures
Abstract
Standard neural networks and statistical methods are usually believed to be inadequate when dealing with complex structures because of their feature-based approach. In fact, feature-based approaches usually fail to give satisfactory solutions because of the sensitivity of the approach to the a priori selection of the features, and the incapacity to represent any specific information on the relationships among the components of the structures. However, we show that neural networks can, in fact, represent and classify structured patterns. The key idea underpinning our approach is the use of the so called "generalized recursive neuron", which is essentially a generalization to structures of a recurrent neuron. By using generalized recursive neurons, all the supervised networks developed for the classification of sequences, such as backpropagation through time networks, real-time recurrent networks, simple recurrent networks, recurrent cascade correlation networks, and neural trees can, on the whole, be generalized to structures. The results obtained by some of the above networks (with generalized recursive neurons) on the classification of logic terms are presented.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sperduti et al. (1997) first applied neural networks to directed acyclic graphs, which motivated early studies on GNNs.
“Sperduti et al. (1997) [13] first applied neural networks to directed acyclic graphs, which motivated early studies on GNNs.”
From A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Constrained by computational power, earlier research mainly focused on directed acyclic graphs.
“Constrained by computational power, earlier research mainly focused on directed acyclic graphs [13], [80].”
From A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 666
- Authors
- Sperduti, A., & Starita, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Pisa (IT)
- ORCID
- Sperduti, A.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks
- Published
- 1997-05
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 714-735
- ISSN
- 1045-9227 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-0093
- OpenAlex
- W2166681504
- Cited by
- 666
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 12.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and ELM
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
- Keywords
- supervised neural networks, recurrent neural networks, backpropagation through time, Elman neural network, neural trees
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review