theorem 2
- North America > United States > California > Alameda County > Berkeley (0.04)
- North America > Canada (0.04)
- North America > United States > California > San Francisco County > San Francisco (0.14)
- North America > United States > California > Santa Clara County > Palo Alto (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- (3 more...)
- North America > United States > Arizona > Maricopa County > Phoenix (0.04)
- Europe > Sweden > Stockholm > Stockholm (0.04)
- Asia > China > Jiangsu Province > Nanjing (0.04)
- (13 more...)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.14)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > New Jersey > Mercer County > Princeton (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Information Technology > Game Theory (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Mathematics of Computing (0.64)
- Information Technology > Data Science > Data Mining > Big Data (0.46)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.14)
- Europe > France > Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes > Isère > Grenoble (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- (5 more...)
- Information Technology > Game Theory (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Data Science > Data Mining > Big Data (0.46)
A Proof of Proposition 2.2: additive expansion proposition
We first define the restricted Cheeger constant in the link prediction task. Then, according to Proposition 2.1, we have: Then, we can draw the same conclusion with Eq.12, and the Thus, Eq.16 can be simplified to: "sites" Based on the Eq.15 and Eq.17, we can rewrite L The inequality holds due to the assumption. Knowledge discovery: In the 5 random experiments, we add 500 pseudo links in each iteration. The metadata information of the nodes are all strongly relevant to "Linux" Both papers focus on the "malware"/"phishing" under the topic "Computer security". The detailed result of the case study is shown in Table 6.
- Information Technology > Security & Privacy (1.00)
- Information Technology > Software (0.96)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning (0.90)
- Information Technology > Data Science > Data Mining (0.57)
- Asia > China > Hong Kong (0.04)
- Asia > China > Guangdong Province > Guangzhou (0.04)
- Asia > Taiwan (0.04)
- (2 more...)
A Proofs
Further taking the usual assumption that X is compact. Let us start with Proposition 3, a central observation needed in Theorem 2. Put into words Now, we can proceed to prove the universality part of Theorem 2. Since the task admits a smooth separator, By Fubini's theorem and Proposition 3, we have F The reader can think of λ as a uniform distribution over G. (as in Theorem 2). The result follows directly from the combination of de Finetti's theorem [ Combining this with Kallenberg's noise transfer theorem we have that the weights and Assumption 1 or ii) is an inner-product decision graph problem as in Definition 3. Further, the task has infinitely (as in Theorem 2). Finally, we follow Proposition 2's proof by simply replacing de Finetti's with Aldous-Hoover's theorem. Define an RLC that samples the linear coefficients as follows.