<p>(a) The upper plot illustrates the precision curves for all approaches on the PPI-1 network while the bars in the lower plot illustrate the corresponding AUP (area under precision curve) values for each approach. (b) The upper plot illustrates the precision curves for all approaches on the PPI-2 network while the bars in the lower plot illustrate the corresponding AUP (area under precision curve) values for each approach. The sampling parameter is tuned by 20, 30 and 50 for the FBM approach. The computational time (seconds) for each method is shown in the legend.</p
<p>Results of <b>(a)</b> precision, <b>(b)</b> recall, and <b>(c)</b> structural accuracy, respectiv...
<p>a) Comparison of the accuracy obtained by the proposed method (left side) and the classical netwo...
Comparison results of different network models: A is training accuracy of model, B is validation acc...
<p>Each value is the average time in seconds for 10 independent runs.</p><p>Comparison of the comput...
<p><b>A.</b> ROC curves of the four methods compared. Green: <i>mirror</i>; Orange: <i>tol-mirror</i...
We show results for the following networks: WikiVote; NetHEPT; Epinions; Email-EuAll. Each plot depi...
<p>The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values shown were computed from 100 simulations for each setti...
<p>Precision rate comparison of our method and two other methods on synthetic multilayer networks.</...
The AUC and precision results compared with baseline methods on 13 real networks.</p
<p>Ratio between computational times Θ<sub>RS</sub> and Θ<sub>TGA</sub> per single realization of a ...
<p>The figure shows the computation time required to infer networks of different sizes, for the LP (...
Top row corresponds to the run-times in seconds of different methods in scenario (S1) and scenario (...
<p>Computational times and accuracy comparisons of various algorithms on Schemes 1–4.</p
<p>Each value is averaged over 100 independent runs with random divisions of training set and probe...
<p>(<i>a</i>) A human PPI network with <i>n</i> = 11,524 nodes and average degree of 9.0. The dashed...
<p>Results of <b>(a)</b> precision, <b>(b)</b> recall, and <b>(c)</b> structural accuracy, respectiv...
<p>a) Comparison of the accuracy obtained by the proposed method (left side) and the classical netwo...
Comparison results of different network models: A is training accuracy of model, B is validation acc...
<p>Each value is the average time in seconds for 10 independent runs.</p><p>Comparison of the comput...
<p><b>A.</b> ROC curves of the four methods compared. Green: <i>mirror</i>; Orange: <i>tol-mirror</i...
We show results for the following networks: WikiVote; NetHEPT; Epinions; Email-EuAll. Each plot depi...
<p>The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values shown were computed from 100 simulations for each setti...
<p>Precision rate comparison of our method and two other methods on synthetic multilayer networks.</...
The AUC and precision results compared with baseline methods on 13 real networks.</p
<p>Ratio between computational times Θ<sub>RS</sub> and Θ<sub>TGA</sub> per single realization of a ...
<p>The figure shows the computation time required to infer networks of different sizes, for the LP (...
Top row corresponds to the run-times in seconds of different methods in scenario (S1) and scenario (...
<p>Computational times and accuracy comparisons of various algorithms on Schemes 1–4.</p
<p>Each value is averaged over 100 independent runs with random divisions of training set and probe...
<p>(<i>a</i>) A human PPI network with <i>n</i> = 11,524 nodes and average degree of 9.0. The dashed...
<p>Results of <b>(a)</b> precision, <b>(b)</b> recall, and <b>(c)</b> structural accuracy, respectiv...
<p>a) Comparison of the accuracy obtained by the proposed method (left side) and the classical netwo...
Comparison results of different network models: A is training accuracy of model, B is validation acc...