Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Automated Heterogeneous Network learning with Non-Recursive Message Passing

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read AutoGNR claims that replacing recursive message passing with per-hop, per-type aggregation plus differentiable architecture search consistently improves node classification on heterogeneous information networks.

desk verdict Useful NAS-for-HIN paper with a real but narrow novelty; the abstract's 'consistently outperforms' overstates Table 3 and should be fixed before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07598 v1 pith:42YTJHC4 submitted 2025-01-10 cs.LG

Zhaoqing Li , Maiqi Jiang , Shengyuan Chen , Bo Li , Guorong Chen , Xiao Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords heterogeneousinformationnetworksgraphneuralnon-recursivemessagepassingarchitecturesearchnodeclassificationdifferentiablemeta-pathlarge-scalegraphs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

AutoGNR is trying to establish that the dominant recursive message-passing design of heterogeneous graph neural networks is itself the cause of a large part of their error: as information travels hop by hop through intermediate nodes, embeddings from uncorrelated node types get fused in and act as noise. The paper's solution is to aggregate each hop separately, restrict each hop to a learned subset of node types (possibly the empty set, so a hop is dropped), and then combine the hop embeddings once. A differentiable neural architecture search, adapted from the DARTS bi-level formulation, chooses those per-hop type subsets automatically, and the resulting discrete architecture is retrained from scratch. The claim, supported by node-classification experiments on five datasets, is that this non-recursive, task-aware pipeline consistently beats meta-path-based, meta-structure-free, and NAS-based heterogeneous GNN baselines on accuracy and is competitive or better on training time. If correct, the practical consequence is that hand-designed meta-paths and recursive mixing are not just inconvenient but actually less accurate than automatically pruning heterogeneous paths per task.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the non-recursive heterogeneous aggregation update. In the intra-hop step, $$e^k_u=\mathrm{AGG}_{\mathrm{intra}}(x_v : v\in N^k(u),\$\varphi$(v)\in C^k)$$ averages features of k-hop neighbors of the allowed types, with normalization by degree counts; in the inter-hop step, $$h_u=\frac{1}{K+1}\big(\$\sigma$(F_{\mathrm{norm}}(x_u))+\sum_{k=1}^K \$\sigma$(F_{\mathrm{norm}}(e^k_u))\big)$$ combines the anchor's own feature with each hop embedding exactly once, never recursively. The second carrying component is the differentiable search over the per-hop type sets: each candidate subset $C^k_c$ gets a softmax weight derived from architecture parameters $\lambda^k$, and a DARTS-style bi-level objective alternately updates model weights on the training loss and architecture weights on the validation loss; the zero matrix $O$ is a candidate so the search can drop an entire hop. This combination is what lets the model prune uncorrelated heterogeneous paths automatically.

What would settle it

A concrete test would be a heterogeneous graph where the label of a target node depends mainly on a relationship among non-target types that never touches the target type—for example, predicting a paper's field from venue-venue citation patterns that bypass the paper node itself. If a recursive or unconstrained model can exploit that path and AutoGNR's task-dependent search space cannot, the claimed generality of the method would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that unnecessary feature mixing across node types and hops is the bottleneck in heterogeneous network learning, and that it can be removed without losing task-relevant information. AutoGNR defines a non-recursive message-passing update in which the k-th hop embedding of an anchor node is produced independently by aggregating only the neighbors whose type belongs to a candidate set $C^k$, and the final embedding is a single average over the anchor's normalized feature and the $K$ hop embeddings. The search space then contains, for each hop, every non-empty subset of node types plus a zero matrix $O$, and a task-dependent constraint removes paths that involve only node types unrelated to the downstream target type. Differentiable architecture search learns a softmax mixing weight for each candidate subset, and after convergence the discrete architecture with the argmax weight per hop is retrained from scratch. The reported results claim consistent Macro-F1 and Micro-F1 improvements over twelve baselines on ACM, DBLP, IMDB, PubMed, and DBLP2, with the searched per-hop selections overlapping known meta-paths such as APA and MDM while also dropping hops or types that hurt performance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for any given prediction task, all useful information flows through paths that involve the target node type, so paths connecting only other node types can be removed from the search space without losing task-relevant signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On all five datasets in the paper, replacing recursive mixing with non-recursive per-hop aggregation improves node-classification accuracy over the strongest baselines, which would make non-recursive designs the default starting point for heterogeneous GNNs.
  • The task-dependent search space shrinks the NAS problem enough that the full search-plus-retrain procedure is competitive with, and on DBLP2 faster than, non-automated models, suggesting automation does not have to cost scalability.
  • The searched architectures overlap with human-designed meta-paths such as APA and MDM, indicating that automatic search can recover expert knowledge without manual design.
  • Because the framework is agnostic to the choice of $\mathrm{AGG}_{\mathrm{intra}}$ and $\mathrm{AGG}_{\mathrm{inter}}$, the same non-recursive search recipe can be carried over to other message-passing GNN backbones.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to let the maximum hop count $K$ itself be part of the search, since their experiments show accuracy first improves then degrades as $K$ grows; a schedule or regularizer on $K$ might find task-specific depths automatically.
  • The task-dependent constraint is the method's ceiling: if future benchmarks include tasks where cross-type-only paths carry the signal, the search space would need a relaxation such as allowing paths that return to the target type through other types, or a validation-based check of dropped paths.
  • The noise-reduction story could be tested more directly than the paper does by measuring representation similarity or mutual information between searched and dropped type subsets, rather than only downstream accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes AutoGNR, a framework for heterogeneous information network learning that replaces recursive message passing with a non-recursive, per-hop aggregation mechanism and uses differentiable neural architecture search to select, for each hop, which combinations of node types to aggregate. The search space includes single types, type combinations, and a zero option for dropping a hop, and is constrained to paths related to the target node type. The method is evaluated on node classification across three normal-scale datasets (ACM, DBLP, IMDB) and two large-scale datasets (PubMed, DBLP2), with runtime comparisons and an ablation study. The central claims are that non-recursive aggregation reduces noise from uncorrelated intermediate types, that the tailored search space is both comprehensive and tractable, and that AutoGNR consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, AutoGNR is a useful contribution: it combines non-recursive aggregation with NAS in a way that avoids manual meta-path design, and the search space explicitly includes combinations of node types rather than only single types. The experimental coverage is substantial—five datasets, five-fold cross-validation with 50 runs per setting, large-scale graphs including DBLP2 with about two million nodes, and runtime comparisons. The paper also provides a useful analysis of the architectures selected by the search. The main weakness is that the headline claim of consistent superiority is not fully supported by the normal-scale results, where the strongest baseline RpHGNN is numerically better in several cells, and no significance tests are provided.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Table 3] The abstract's claim that AutoGNR 'consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods' is not supported by the normal-scale results in Table 3. In four of the eighteen normal-scale cells AutoGNR is numerically below RpHGNN: ACM 100% Macro-F1 (92.99 vs. 93.02), ACM 100% Micro-F1 (92.96 vs. 92.97), IMDB 25% Macro-F1 (62.52 vs. 63.69), and IMDB 100% Macro-F1 (71.23 vs. 71.37). Since only means and standard deviations are reported, with no paired significance tests or effect sizes, the evidence does not establish consistent superiority over the strongest baseline on normal-scale HINs. The more cautious 'generally outperforms' wording used in Section 5.4 is the most that Table 3 supports; I ask the authors to either add appropriate statistical tests (e.g., paired tests over the 50 runs) or revise the abstract and contribution statements accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.3] The task-dependent search-space constraint is a central component of the method, but its description is internally inconsistent. The text says that for author classification one can 'drop the unnecessary message passing paths related to the representations of other node types, i.e., paths from A to P, from A to C, and between C and P,' yet Fig. 1(b) and Table 4 include P at 1-hop and C at 2-hop for the author anchor. Please clarify what exactly is dropped and justify why paths that do not return to the target type can be excluded without loss of task-relevant information; currently this is asserted rather than validated, and it is the main place where the method could miss useful cross-type structure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1] There is a typo in the introduction: 'facilatate' should be 'facilitate'.
  2. [Section 4.3] The notation '|C|max = 2|T|' appears to be a formatting error; the number of all possible node type combinations should be 2^{|T|}, not 2|T|.
  3. [Section 5.3] The experimental protocol says the model is run 10 times with 10 random seeds, while Table 3 and Figures 3-4 report results averaged over 50 runs; please clarify that the 50 runs come from 5-fold cross-validation times 10 seeds, or otherwise reconcile the numbers.
  4. [Section 5.4; Table 2] The text describes SeHGNN and RpHGNN as having 'non-recursive updates' in the context of strong performance, but Table 2 marks both as facing the problem of unnecessary feature mixing; please reconcile this apparent inconsistency.
  5. [Section 5.7] In the scalability analysis, 'GGAT outperformed GCN' should read 'GAT outperformed GCN'.
  6. [Table 7] The row 'AutoGNR (First Order)' has exactly the same numbers as AutoGNR on ACM and IMDB; please clarify whether this is expected or a reporting error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-recursive aggregation, differentiable search, and retraining pipeline are self-contained, with architecture parameters selected on validation data and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The core components are explicit and self-contained: Eq. (3)-(6) define non-recursive per-hop, per-type aggregation; Eq. (7)-(9) parameterize the architecture mixing weights; Eq. (10) is a standard bi-level NAS objective; and Eq. (12)-(13) follow DARTS. The architecture parameters λ are optimized on a validation split and later discretized and retrained, which is ordinary model selection rather than a fitted parameter being dressed as a prediction. The task-dependent search space in Sec. 4.3 is an explicit modeling assumption about which node-type paths are relevant to the target type; it may limit coverage of useful cross-type paths, but it does not definitionally force the reported results. There is no load-bearing self-citation: references to DARTS, heterogeneous GNN baselines, and benchmark datasets are external and standard. The only notable discrepancy is empirical rather than circular: the abstract's 'consistently outperforms' is stronger than Table 3, where AutoGNR is numerically below RpHGNN in several normal-scale cells and no significance tests are reported. That is a correctness/evidence concern, not a circularity. I therefore find no circular step and assign a low score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; the zero matrix O in the search space is a device for dropping a hop, not an invented entity. The main free parameters are standard hyperparameters, with K=3 being the most consequential because it is chosen after inspecting the same benchmark results. The axioms capture the design assumptions that the method's success depends on, especially the task-dependent pruning rule and the sufficiency of raw-feature per-hop aggregation.

free parameters (6)
  • Maximum neighbor hops K = 3
    Chosen after observing Fig. 6 that K=4 improves DBLP/IMDB but hurts ACM, and K=5 hurts all; the paper selects K=3 as a compromise (Section 5.8). This is a hand-chosen hyperparameter that affects the search space size and the results.
  • Hidden dimension = 64
    Used for all datasets; ablation shows hidden size 64 vs 256 has little effect (Fig. 6), so it is not critical but still a choice.
  • Dropout rate = 0.2
    Set for all datasets; standard regularization.
  • Learning rate = 0.01
    Used for search and retraining; no sensitivity analysis.
  • Random walk count and length (large scale) = 1000 walks, length 4
    Used to approximate neighborhoods on DBLP2 and PubMed for all models; no analysis of how this approximation affects results.
  • Early stopping patience = 10
    Standard and not analyzed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bi-level optimization as in DARTS approximates the validation architecture gradient with a one-step unrolled update.
    Section 4.5, Eq. 13; the approximation is inherited from DARTS and is not validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Aggregating raw input features from each hop independently, then averaging hop embeddings, is sufficient for node classification without inter-hop feature composition.
    Section 4.1-4.2, Eqs. 3-6 and 11; the model never transforms features between hops, which limits expressiveness.
  • ad hoc to paper Only paths related to the target node type are relevant; other paths can be dropped without losing task information.
    Section 4.3 and Fig. 1; this task-dependent constraint is manually justified and is load-bearing for the search space size.
  • domain assumption Random walk sampling with 1000 walks of length 4 approximates the graph sufficiently for large-scale datasets.
    Section 5.2; applied to all models but no fidelity analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Public datasets and published baseline implementations are used as-is and reported baseline numbers are reproducible.
    Section 5.1-5.3; no code or configuration files are shipped to verify this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated Heterogeneous Network learning with Non-Recursive Message Passing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42YTJHC4

@misc{pith2026250107598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated Heterogeneous Network learning with Non-Recursive Message Passing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42YTJHC4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07598}
}
read the original abstract

Heterogeneous information networks (HINs) can be used to model various real-world systems. As HINs consist of multiple types of nodes, edges, and node features, it is nontrivial to directly apply graph neural network (GNN) techniques in heterogeneous cases. There are two remaining major challenges. First, homogeneous message passing in a recursive manner neglects the distinct types of nodes and edges in different hops, leading to unnecessary information mixing. This often results in the incorporation of ``noise'' from uncorrelated intermediate neighbors, thereby degrading performance. Second, feature learning should be handled differently for different types, which is challenging especially when the type sizes are large. To bridge this gap, we develop a novel framework - AutoGNR, to directly utilize and automatically extract effective heterogeneous information. Instead of recursive homogeneous message passing, we introduce a non-recursive message passing mechanism for GNN to mitigate noise from uncorrelated node types in HINs. Furthermore, under the non-recursive framework, we manage to efficiently perform neural architecture search for an optimal GNN structure in a differentiable way, which can automatically define the heterogeneous paths for aggregation. Our tailored search space encompasses more effective candidates while maintaining a tractable size. Experiments show that AutoGNR consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods on both normal and large scale real-world HIN datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of AutoGNR with K = 2 on an example HIN. (a) A sample heterogeneous information network of DBLP, consisting of three node types (i.e., A, P, and C, denoted with different shapes) and four edge types (i.e., AP, P A, CP, and P C). We use different colors to distinguish neighbors in different hops, and here we regard the yellow Author (A1) node as the anchor (target) node. (b) The specific search space for … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of non-recursive GNN framework. Dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time cost (GPU seconds) of different models on normal-scale datasets (ACM, DBLP, and IMDB). For NAS-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time cost (measured in GPU seconds) of various models on large-scale datasets (DBLP2 and PubMed). For NAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hop-wise selection frequency distribution. The results are obtained by counting over the 50 times search on 100% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Macro-F1 performance of AutoGNR with different hyperparameters (i.e., hidden dimension width and maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Deep collective classification in heterogeneous information networks,

    Y. Zhang, Y. Xiong, X. Kong, S. Li, J. Mi, and Y. Zhu, “Deep collective classification in heterogeneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, 2018, pp. 399– 408

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification,

    Y. Rong, W. Huang, T. Xu, and J. Huang, “Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Node classification in signed social networks,

    J. Tang, C. Aggarwal, and H. Liu, “Node classification in signed social networks,” in Proceedings of the 2016 SIAM international conference on data mining. SIAM, 2016, pp. 54–62

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Link prediction based on graph neu- ral networks,

    M. Zhang and Y. Chen, “Link prediction based on graph neu- ral networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Composition- based multi-relational graph convolutional networks,

    S. Vashishth, S. Sanyal, V . Nitin, and P . Talukdar, “Composition- based multi-relational graph convolutional networks,” in Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Distance encoding: Design provably more powerful neural networks for graph rep- resentation learning,

    P . Li, Y. Wang, H. Wang, and J. Leskovec, “Distance encoding: Design provably more powerful neural networks for graph rep- resentation learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 4465–4478, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Learning knowledge graph embedding with heterogeneous relation atten- tion networks,

    Z. Li, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, T. Liu, and N. N. Xiong, “Learning knowledge graph embedding with heterogeneous relation atten- tion networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3961–3973, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Meta-knowledge transfer for inductive knowledge graph embed- ding,

    M. Chen, W. Zhang, Y. Zhu, H. Zhou, Z. Yuan, C. Xu, and H. Chen, “Meta-knowledge transfer for inductive knowledge graph embed- ding,” in Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 927– 937

    work page 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Indigo: Gnn-based inductive knowledge graph completion using pair-wise encod- ing,

    S. Liu, B. Grau, I. Horrocks, and E. Kostylev, “Indigo: Gnn-based inductive knowledge graph completion using pair-wise encod- ing,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 2034–2045, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Sim- plifying graph convolutional networks,

    F. Wu, A. Souza, T. Zhang, C. Fifty, T. Yu, and K. Weinberger, “Sim- plifying graph convolutional networks,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 6861–6871

    2019

  4. [12]

    Gated graph sequence neural networks,

    Y. Li, R. Zemel, M. Brockschmidt, and D. Tarlow, “Gated graph sequence neural networks,” in Proceedings of ICLR’16, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    A survey of heterogeneous information network analysis,

    C. Shi, Y. Li, J. Zhang, Y. Sun, and S. Y. Philip, “A survey of heterogeneous information network analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 17–37, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Mining heterogeneous information networks: principles and methodologies,

    Y. Sun and J. Han, “Mining heterogeneous information networks: principles and methodologies,” Synthesis Lectures on Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1–159, 2012

    2012

  7. [15]

    Rankclus: integrating clustering with ranking for heterogeneous information network analysis,

    Y. Sun, J. Han, P . Zhao, Z. Yin, H. Cheng, and T. Wu, “Rankclus: integrating clustering with ranking for heterogeneous information network analysis,” in International Conference on Extending Database Technology , 2009. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/Cor...

    2009

  8. [16]

    Collective prediction of multiple types of links in heterogeneous information networks,

    B. Cao, X. Kong, and P . S. Yu, “Collective prediction of multiple types of links in heterogeneous information networks,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining , 2014, pp. 50–59

    2014

  9. [17]

    A com- prehensive survey on graph neural networks,

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, G. Long, C. Zhang, and P . S. Yu, “A com- prehensive survey on graph neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 4–24, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Heterogeneous graph neural network,

    C. Zhang, D. Song, C. Huang, A. Swami, and N. V . Chawla, “Heterogeneous graph neural network,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2019, pp. 793–803

    2019

  11. [19]

    Non-recursive graph convo- lutional networks,

    H. Chen, Z. Deng, Y. Xu, and Z. Li, “Non-recursive graph convo- lutional networks,” in ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Con- ference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 3205–3209

    2021

  12. [20]

    Towards deeper graph neural net- works,

    M. Liu, H. Gao, and S. Ji, “Towards deeper graph neural net- works,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2020, pp. 338–348

    2020

  13. [21]

    Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks,

    M. Schlichtkrull, T. N. Kipf, P . Bloem, R. v. d. Berg, I. Titov, and M. Welling, “Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks,” in European semantic web conference . Springer, 2018, pp. 593–607

    2018

  14. [22]

    Heterogeneous graph attention network,

    X. Wang, H. Ji, C. Shi, B. Wang, Y. Ye, P . Cui, and P . S. Yu, “Heterogeneous graph attention network,” in The world wide web conference, 2019, pp. 2022–2032

    2019

  15. [23]

    Magnn: Metapath ag- gregated graph neural network for heterogeneous graph embed- ding,

    X. Fu, J. Zhang, Z. Meng, and I. King, “Magnn: Metapath ag- gregated graph neural network for heterogeneous graph embed- ding,” in Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , 2020, pp. 2331– 2341

    2020

  16. [24]

    Simple and efficient heterogeneous graph neural network,

    X. Yang, M. Yan, S. Pan, X. Ye, and D. Fan, “Simple and efficient heterogeneous graph neural network,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023, pp. 10 816–10 824

    2023

  17. [25]

    Pathsim: Meta path-based top-k similarity search in heterogeneous information networks,

    Y. Sun, J. Han, X. Yan, P . S. Yu, and T. Wu, “Pathsim: Meta path-based top-k similarity search in heterogeneous information networks,” Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment , vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 992–1003, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Discovering meta-paths in large heterogeneous information networks,

    C. Meng, R. Cheng, S. Maniu, P . Senellart, and W. Zhang, “Discovering meta-paths in large heterogeneous information networks,” in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web , ser. WWW ’15. Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE: International World Wide We...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Higher- order attribute-enhancing heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    J. Li, H. Peng, Y. Cao, Y. Dou, H. Zhang, P . Yu, and L. He, “Higher- order attribute-enhancing heterogeneous graph neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Graph trans- former networks,

    S. Yun, M. Jeong, R. Kim, J. Kang, and H. J. Kim, “Graph trans- former networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Heterogeneous graph transformer,

    Z. Hu, Y. Dong, K. Wang, and Y. Sun, “Heterogeneous graph transformer,” in Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 , 2020, pp. 2704–2710

    2020

  22. [30]

    Mhnf: Multi-hop hetero- geneous neighborhood information fusion graph representation learning,

    Y. S. Sun, D. Zhu, H. Du, and Z. Tian, “Mhnf: Multi-hop hetero- geneous neighborhood information fusion graph representation learning,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    Q. Lv, M. Ding, Q. Liu, Y. Chen, W. Feng, S. He, C. Zhou, J. Jiang, Y. Dong, and J. Tang, “Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    Efficient heterogeneous graph learning via random projection,

    J. Hu, B. Hooi, and B. He, “Efficient heterogeneous graph learning via random projection,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Graph neural networks with a distribution of parametrized graphs,

    S. H. Lee, F. Ji, K. XIA, and W. P . Tay, “Graph neural networks with a distribution of parametrized graphs,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=VyfEv6EjKR

    2024

  26. [34]

    Graph neural architecture search,

    Y. Gao, H. Yang, P . Zhang, C. Zhou, and Y. Hu, “Graph neural architecture search,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence , 2021, pp. 1403–1409

    2021

  27. [35]

    Auto-gnn: Neural architecture search of graph neural networks,

    K. Zhou, Q. Song, X. Huang, and X. Hu, “Auto-gnn: Neural architecture search of graph neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03184, 2019

    1909 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dfg-nas: Deep and flexible graph neural architecture search,

    W. Zhang, Z. Lin, Y. Shen, Y. Li, Z. Yang, and B. Cui, “Dfg-nas: Deep and flexible graph neural architecture search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08582, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Large-scale graph neural architecture search,

    C. Guan, X. Wang, H. Chen, Z. Zhang, and W. Zhu, “Large-scale graph neural architecture search,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 7968–7981

    2022

  30. [38]

    Genetic meta-structure search for recommendation on heterogeneous in- formation network,

    Z. Han, F. Xu, J. Shi, Y. Shang, H. Ma, P . Hui, and Y. Li, “Genetic meta-structure search for recommendation on heterogeneous in- formation network,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , 2020, pp. 455– 464

    2020

  31. [39]

    Autogel: An automated graph neural network with explicit link information,

    Z. Wang, S. Di, and L. Chen, “Autogel: An automated graph neural network with explicit link information,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 24 509–24 522, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Diffmg: Differentiable meta graph search for heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    Y. Ding, Q. Yao, H. Zhao, and T. Zhang, “Diffmg: Differentiable meta graph search for heterogeneous graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2021, pp. 279–288

    2021

  33. [41]

    Measuring and relieving the over-smoothing problem for graph neural networks from the topological view,

    D. Chen, Y. Lin, W. Li, P . Li, J. Zhou, and X. Sun, “Measuring and relieving the over-smoothing problem for graph neural networks from the topological view,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:20...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Hierarchical optimization: An introduction,

    G. Anandalingam and T. L. Friesz, “Hierarchical optimization: An introduction,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 1992

    1992

  35. [43]

    An overview of bilevel optimization,

    B. Colson, P . Marcotte, and G. Savard, “An overview of bilevel optimization,” Annals of operations research, vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 235– 256, 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Darts: Differentiable architec- ture search,

    H. Liu, K. Simonyan, and Y. Yang, “Darts: Differentiable architec- ture search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09055, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Graph attention networks,

    P . Velickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P . Lio, and Y. Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” stat, vol. 1050, p. 20, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    M. Welling and T. N. Kipf, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Heterogeneous network representation learning: A unified framework with survey and benchmark,

    C. Yang, Y. Xiao, Y. Zhang, Y. Sun, and J. Han, “Heterogeneous network representation learning: A unified framework with survey and benchmark,” IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng. , vol. 34, no. 10, p. 4854–4873, oct 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2020...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.