A Graph Label Propagation Semi-Supervised Learning-Based Residential User Profiles Identification Method Using Smart Meter Data

Author(s):  
Hongsheng Li ◽  
Fengping Fu ◽  
Xinlei Bai ◽  
Siqing Yan ◽  
Xiaoxing Lu ◽  
...  
Energy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 121728
Author(s):  
Fei Wang ◽  
Xiaoxing Lu ◽  
Xiqiang Chang ◽  
Xin Cao ◽  
Siqing Yan ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weiwei Du ◽  
Dandan Yuan ◽  
Jianming Wang ◽  
Xiaojie Duan ◽  
Yanhe Ma ◽  
...  

A radiologist must read hundreds of slices to recognize a malignant or benign lung tumor in computed tomography (CT) volume data. To reduce the burden of the radiologist, some proposals have been applied with the ground-glass opacity (GGO) nodules. However, the GGO nodules need be detected and labeled by a radiologist manually. Some slices with the GGO nodule can be missed because there are many slices in several volume data. Although some papers have proposed a semi-supervised learning method to find the slices with GGO nodules, the was no discussion on the impact of parameters in the proposed semi-supervised learning. This article also explains and analyzes the label propagation algorithm which is one of the semi-supervised learning methods to detect the slices including the GGO nodules based on the parameters. Experimental results show that the proposal can detect the slices including the GGO nodules effectively.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 3457-3465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renming Liu ◽  
Christopher A Mancuso ◽  
Anna Yannakopoulos ◽  
Kayla A Johnson ◽  
Arjun Krishnan

Abstract Background Assigning every human gene to specific functions, diseases and traits is a grand challenge in modern genetics. Key to addressing this challenge are computational methods, such as supervised learning and label propagation, that can leverage molecular interaction networks to predict gene attributes. In spite of being a popular machine-learning technique across fields, supervised learning has been applied only in a few network-based studies for predicting pathway-, phenotype- or disease-associated genes. It is unknown how supervised learning broadly performs across different networks and diverse gene classification tasks, and how it compares to label propagation, the widely benchmarked canonical approach for this problem. Results In this study, we present a comprehensive benchmarking of supervised learning for network-based gene classification, evaluating this approach and a classic label propagation technique on hundreds of diverse prediction tasks and multiple networks using stringent evaluation schemes. We demonstrate that supervised learning on a gene’s full network connectivity outperforms label propagaton and achieves high prediction accuracy by efficiently capturing local network properties, rivaling label propagation’s appeal for naturally using network topology. We further show that supervised learning on the full network is also superior to learning on node embeddings (derived using node2vec), an increasingly popular approach for concisely representing network connectivity. These results show that supervised learning is an accurate approach for prioritizing genes associated with diverse functions, diseases and traits and should be considered a staple of network-based gene classification workflows. Availability and implementation The datasets and the code used to reproduce the results and add new gene classification methods have been made freely available. Contact [email protected] Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-30
Author(s):  
Zalán Bodó ◽  
Lehel Csató

Abstract Semi-supervised learning has become an important and thoroughly studied subdomain of machine learning in the past few years, because gathering large unlabeled data is almost costless, and the costly human labeling process can be minimized by semi-supervision. Label propagation is a transductive semi-supervised learning method that operates on the—most of the time undirected—data graph. It was introduced in [8] and since many variants were proposed. However, the base algorithm has two variants: the first variant presented in [8] and its slightly modified version used afterwards, e.g. in [7]. This paper presents and compares the two algorithms—both theoretically and experimentally—and also tries to make a recommendation which variant to use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document