A benchmark of 7 GNNs and 30 losses on 3 graphs claims hybrid losses and GIN rank best on average, but a central summary table contradicts the paper's full results.
ffstruc2vec: Flat, Flexible and Scalable Learning of Node Representations from Structural Identities
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Node embedding refers to techniques that generate low-dimensional vector representations of nodes in a graph while preserving specific properties of the nodes. A key challenge in the field is developing scalable methods that can preserve structural properties suitable for the required types of structural patterns of a given downstream application task. While most existing methods focus on preserving node proximity, those that do preserve structural properties often lack the flexibility to preserve various types of structural patterns required by downstream application tasks. This paper introduces ffstruc2vec, a scalable deep-learning framework for learning node embedding vectors that preserve structural identities. Its flat, efficient architecture allows high flexibility in capturing diverse types of structural patterns, enabling broad adaptability to various downstream application tasks. The proposed framework significantly outperforms existing approaches across diverse unsupervised and supervised tasks in practical applications. Moreover, ffstruc2vec enables explainability by quantifying how individual structural patterns influence task outcomes, providing actionable interpretation. To our knowledge, no existing framework combines this level of flexibility, scalability, and structural interpretability, underscoring its unique capabilities.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.LG 1years
2025 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Evaluating Loss Functions for Graph Neural Networks: Towards Pretraining and Generalization
A benchmark of 7 GNNs and 30 losses on 3 graphs claims hybrid losses and GIN rank best on average, but a central summary table contradicts the paper's full results.