The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning relational probability trees
Abstract
Classification trees are widely used in the machine learning and data mining communities for modeling propositional data. Recent work has extended this basic paradigm to probability estimation trees. Traditional tree learning algorithms assume that instances in the training data are homogenous and independently distributed. Relational probability trees (RPTs) extend standard probability estimation trees to a relational setting in which data instances are heterogeneous and interdependent. Our algorithm for learning the structure and parameters of an RPT searches over a space of relational features that use aggregation functions (e.g. AVERAGE, MODE, COUNT) to dynamically propositionalize relational data and create binary splits within the RPT. Previous work has identified a number of statistical biases due to characteristics of relational data such as autocorrelation and degree disparity. The RPT algorithm uses a novel form of randomization test to adjust for these biases. On a variety of relational learning tasks, RPTs built using randomization tests are significantly smaller than other models and achieve equivalent, or better, performance.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Edgington, E., Edgington, E., & Onghena, P. (2007) · doi:10.1201/9781420011814 · Cited by 2,030
Cited by
Graph based anomaly detection and description: a survey
Akoglu, L., Tong, H., & Koutra, D. (2015) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-014-0365-y · Cited by 1,504
A Survey of Statistical Network Models
Goldenberg, A., Zheng, A. X., Fienberg, S. E., & Airoldi, E. M. (2010) · Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning · doi:10.1561/2200000005 · Cited by 819
Relational learning via latent social dimensions
Tang, L., & Liu, H. (2009) · Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1557019.1557109 · Cited by 799
Classification in Networked Data: A Toolkit and a Univariate Case Study
(2007) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/1248659.1248693 · Cited by 452
A Simple Relational Classifier
Macskassy, S. A., & Provost, F. (2003) · doi:10.21236/ada452802 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Neville, J., Jensen, D., Friedland, L., & Hay, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2003-08-24
- Pages
- 625-630
- OpenAlex
- W2028137574
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.78
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning relational probability trees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/956750.956830
- The paper
- Neville, J., Jensen, D., Friedland, L., & Hay, M. (2003). Learning relational probability trees. Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. https://doi.org/10.1145/956750.956830
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.