pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.13471 · v2 · submitted 2024-08-24 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

Disentangled Generative Graph Representation Learning

Xinyue Hu , Zhibin Duan , Xinyang Liu , Yuxin Li , Bo Chen , Chaojie Wang , Yilin He , Hongwei Liu
show 1 more author
Mingyuan Zhou
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 21:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords disentangled representationsgenerative graph modelsself-supervised learninggraph mask modelinggraph representation learninglatent factors
0
0 comments X

The pith

DiGGR learns latent disentangled factors to guide graph mask modeling and produce more robust representations than random masking.

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

The paper introduces DiGGR as a self-supervised framework that first extracts latent disentangled factors from graphs and then uses those factors to direct which parts of the graph to mask during generative training. This replaces the usual random masking strategy, which the authors argue creates entangled and non-robust representations. By tying the masking process to the learned factors, the method enables joint end-to-end optimization of both the factors and the representations. Experiments on 11 public datasets across two graph tasks show consistent gains over prior self-supervised baselines.

Core claim

DiGGR learns latent disentangled factors and utilizes them to guide graph mask modeling, thereby enhancing the disentanglement of learned representations and enabling end-to-end joint learning.

What carries the argument

The mechanism of extracting latent disentangled factors and using them to guide graph mask modeling, which replaces random masking and drives the joint learning process.

If this is right

  • Graph representations gain improved disentanglement and explainability.
  • The framework achieves end-to-end training of factors and representations together.
  • Performance improves on downstream graph tasks relative to prior self-supervised methods.
  • Random masking's non-robustness is mitigated by factor-guided masking.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same factor-guided masking idea could be tested in non-generative graph models.
  • Disentanglement gains might transfer to graph tasks that require interpretability, such as molecular property prediction.
  • The approach opens a path to measure how well different masking strategies affect downstream robustness.

Load-bearing premise

That learning latent disentangled factors and using them to guide masking will produce more disentangled and robust representations than random masking does.

What would settle it

An experiment in which DiGGR shows no improvement over random-masking baselines on the same 11 datasets or no measurable increase in representation disentanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2408.13471 by Bo Chen, Chaojie Wang, Hongwei Liu, Mingyuan Zhou, Xinyang Liu, Xinyue Hu, Yilin He, Yuxin Li, Zhibin Duan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The number of latent factors is set to 4. In Fig. 1(a), the probabilities of nodes belonging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The overview of proposed DiGGR’s computation graph. The input data successively passes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: representation correlation matrix on Cora with number of factors K = 4. 4(a) depicts the representation of entanglement, while 4(b) illustrates disentanglement. Task-relevant factors To assess the statistical correlation between the learned latent factor and the task, we follow the approach in [He et al., 2022b] and compute the Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) between the nodes in the factor label and t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of the task under different choices of latent factor number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The absolute correlation between the representations learned by GraphMAE and DiGGR is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We present examples of 1-hop subgraphs of nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recently, generative graph models have shown promising results in learning graph representations through self-supervised methods. However, most existing generative graph representation learning (GRL) approaches rely on random masking across the entire graph, which overlooks the entanglement of learned representations. This oversight results in non-robustness and a lack of explainability. Furthermore, disentangling the learned representations remains a significant challenge and has not been sufficiently explored in GRL research. Based on these insights, this paper introduces DiGGR (Disentangled Generative Graph Representation Learning), a self-supervised learning framework. DiGGR aims to learn latent disentangled factors and utilizes them to guide graph mask modeling, thereby enhancing the disentanglement of learned representations and enabling end-to-end joint learning. Extensive experiments on 11 public datasets for two different graph learning tasks demonstrate that DiGGR consistently outperforms many previous self-supervised methods, verifying the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DiGGR, a self-supervised generative graph representation learning framework that learns latent disentangled factors and uses them to guide graph mask modeling. The goal is to improve disentanglement, robustness, and explainability over standard random-masking approaches in GRL. The central empirical claim is that DiGGR consistently outperforms prior self-supervised methods on 11 public datasets across two graph learning tasks.

Significance. If the performance gains are shown to arise specifically from the disentangled-factor guidance mechanism rather than other modeling choices, the work could offer a concrete route to more interpretable and robust self-supervised graph representations. The manuscript provides no machine-checked proofs, parameter-free derivations, or direct falsifiable predictions of disentanglement quality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that learning latent disentangled factors and using them to guide mask modeling 'enhances the disentanglement of learned representations' is load-bearing for the contribution, yet the abstract reports only aggregate downstream-task gains; no direct disentanglement metric, no ablation that isolates the guidance mechanism from random masking, and no robustness evaluation against masking variations are described.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement of 'consistent outperformance' on 11 datasets lacks any mention of error bars, statistical significance tests, hyperparameter sensitivity, or the precise baselines and tasks, which are required to evaluate whether the results support the proposed causal mechanism.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if it named the two graph learning tasks and the 11 datasets.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address the major comments point-by-point below and will make revisions to strengthen the abstract as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that learning latent disentangled factors and using them to guide mask modeling 'enhances the disentanglement of learned representations' is load-bearing for the contribution, yet the abstract reports only aggregate downstream-task gains; no direct disentanglement metric, no ablation that isolates the guidance mechanism from random masking, and no robustness evaluation against masking variations are described.

    Authors: We agree the abstract should better foreground the supporting evidence for the disentanglement claim. The manuscript body reports direct disentanglement metrics, ablations isolating the guidance mechanism, and robustness checks against masking variations. We will revise the abstract to concisely reference these evaluations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement of 'consistent outperformance' on 11 datasets lacks any mention of error bars, statistical significance tests, hyperparameter sensitivity, or the precise baselines and tasks, which are required to evaluate whether the results support the proposed causal mechanism.

    Authors: The abstract is a high-level summary; the full experimental sections provide error bars, statistical significance tests, hyperparameter sensitivity analysis, and precise baseline/task details. We will update the abstract to note that outperformance is reported with these statistical and robustness elements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No mathematical derivation chain present; empirical claims rest on independent experimental comparisons

full rationale

The paper introduces DiGGR as a self-supervised framework that learns disentangled factors to guide masking, with effectiveness asserted via outperformance on 11 datasets across two tasks. No equations, predictions, or first-principles derivations are exhibited in the provided text that could reduce to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. The central claims are empirical and falsifiable against external benchmarks, with no load-bearing step that collapses by construction to the method's own inputs. This is the standard non-circular outcome for an empirical methods paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no equations or implementation details, so no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified; the framework implicitly assumes that disentangled factors exist and can be learned to guide masking.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1060 out tokens · 16756 ms · 2026-05-23T21:22:04.269953+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    BEiT: BERT Pre-Training of Image Transformers

    Hangbo Bao, Li Dong, Songhao Piao, and Furu Wei. Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16000–16009, 2022a. Qiaoyu Tan, Ninghao Liu, Xiao Huang, Rui Chen, Soo-Hyun Choi, and Xia Hu. Mgae: Masked autoencoders for self-sup...

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    Rare: Robust masked graph autoencoder

    Wenxuan Tu, Qing Liao, Sihang Zhou, Xin Peng, Chuan Ma, Zhe Liu, Xinwang Liu, and Zhiping Cai. Rare: Robust masked graph autoencoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01507,

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12265, 2019

    Weihua Hu, Bowen Liu, Joseph Gomes, Marinka Zitnik, Percy Liang, Vijay Pande, and Jure Leskovec. Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.12265,

    work page arXiv 1905

  6. [6]

    Deep graph contrastive representation learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04131,

    Yanqiao Zhu, Yichen Xu, Feng Yu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. Deep graph contrastive representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04131,

    work page arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Deep Graph Infomax

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, William Fedus, William L Hamilton, Pietro Liò, Yoshua Bengio, and R Devon Hjelm. Deep graph infomax. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10341,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    A variational edge partition model for supervised graph representation learning

    Yilin He, Chaojie Wang, Hao Zhang, Bo Chen, and Mingyuan Zhou. A variational edge partition model for supervised graph representation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:12339–12351, 2022b. 11 Hao Zhang, Bo Chen, Dandan Guo, and Mingyuan Zhou. Whai: Weibull hybrid autoencoding inference for deep topic modeling. arXiv preprint a...

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016a. Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2980–2988,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    Seegera: Self-supervised semi- implicit graph variational auto-encoders with masking

    Xiang Li, Tiandi Ye, Caihua Shan, Dongsheng Li, and Ming Gao. Seegera: Self-supervised semi- implicit graph variational auto-encoders with masking. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2023, pages 143–153, 2023b. Zhilin Yang, William Cohen, and Ruslan Salakhudinov. Revisiting semi-supervised learning with graph embeddings. In International conference ...

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Large-scale representation learning on graphs via bootstrapping

    Shantanu Thakoor, Corentin Tallec, Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mehdi Azabou, Eva L Dyer, Remi Munos, Petar Veliˇckovi´c, and Michal Valko. Large-scale representation learning on graphs via bootstrapping. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06514,

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    Graphmae2: A decoding-enhanced masked self-supervised graph learner

    Zhenyu Hou, Yufei He, Yukuo Cen, Xiao Liu, Yuxiao Dong, Evgeny Kharlamov, and Jie Tang. Graphmae2: A decoding-enhanced masked self-supervised graph learner. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 737–746,

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Masked graph autoencoder with non-discrete bandwidths

    Ziwen Zhao, Yuhua Li, Yixiong Zou, Jiliang Tang, and Ruixuan Li. Masked graph autoencoder with non-discrete bandwidths. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03814,

    work page arXiv

  14. [14]

    Variational Graph Auto-Encoders

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Variational graph auto-encoders.arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07308, 2016b. Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    graph2vec: Learning Distributed Representations of Graphs

    12 Annamalai Narayanan, Mahinthan Chandramohan, Rajasekar Venkatesan, Lihui Chen, Yang Liu, and Shantanu Jaiswal. graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05005,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Infograph: Unsupervised and semi- supervised graph-level representation learning via mutual information maximization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01000,

    Fan-Yun Sun, Jordan Hoffmann, Vikas Verma, and Jian Tang. Infograph: Unsupervised and semi- supervised graph-level representation learning via mutual information maximization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01000,

    work page arXiv 1908

  17. [17]

    Sub2vec: Feature learning for subgraphs

    Bijaya Adhikari, Yao Zhang, Naren Ramakrishnan, and B Aditya Prakash. Sub2vec: Feature learning for subgraphs. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 22nd Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2018, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, June 3-6, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 22, pages 170–182. Springer,

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Self-supervised learning from a multi-view perspective

    Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Yue Wu, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis-Philippe Morency. Self-supervised learning from a multi-view perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.05576,

    work page arXiv 2006

  19. [19]

    Local graph partitioning using pagerank vectors

    Reid Andersen, Fan Chung, and Kevin Lang. Local graph partitioning using pagerank vectors. In 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS’06), pages 475–486. IEEE,

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    The optimal number of z that maximizes performance tends to be concentrated in the range of 2-4

    Given the relatively small size of the graphs in the dataset, the number of meaningful latent disentangled factor z is not expected to be very large. The optimal number of z that maximizes performance tends to be concentrated in the range of 2-4. 1 2 4 8 16 Factor Number K 82.5 83.5 84.5 85.5 86.5Accuracy (%) (a) Cora 1 2 4 8 16 Factor Number K 86 87 88 8...

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    Table 5 and Table 6 show the specific statistics of used datasets

    Nodes with degrees surpassing 400 are uniformly treated as having a degree of 400, following the methodology of GraphMAE[Hou et al., 2022]. Table 5 and Table 6 show the specific statistics of used datasets. Details for Visualization MUTAG is selected as the representative benchmark for visualization in 4.3. The MUTAG dataset comprises 3,371 nodes with sev...

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Dataset IMDB-B IMDB-M PROTEINS COLLAB MUTAG REDDIT-B NCI1 Statistics Avg

    15 Table 6: Statistics for graph classification datasets. Dataset IMDB-B IMDB-M PROTEINS COLLAB MUTAG REDDIT-B NCI1 Statistics Avg. # node 19.8 13.0 39.1 74.5 17.9 429.7 29.8 # features 136 89 3 401 7 401 37 # graphs 1000 1500 1113 5000 188 2000 4110 # classes 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 Hyper- parameters Mask Rate 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.25 Hidden Size 512 512 51...

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    2: Parameters: Θ in the inference network of Latent Factor Learning phase, Ω in the encoding network of DiGGR, Ψ in the decoding network of DiGGR

    A.4 Training Algorithm 16 Algorithm 1 The Overall Training Algorithm of DiGGR 1: Input: Graph G = {V, A, X}; latent factor number K. 2: Parameters: Θ in the inference network of Latent Factor Learning phase, Ω in the encoding network of DiGGR, Ψ in the decoding network of DiGGR. 3: Initialize Θ, Ω, and Ψ; 4: for iter = 1,2, · ·· do 5: Infer the variationa...

    work page 2022