Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Domain Adaptive Unfolded Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unfolded graph neural networks transfer better between domains when their output is fed back through the propagation step, and the authors prove this cascaded propagation never increases the network's underlying optimization objective.

desk verdict A simple, potentially useful architectural plug-in for unfolded GNNs in domain adaptation, but the theory is tautological and the empirical gains are not yet separated from doubled depth. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13137 v1 pith:5KQOUVXR submitted 2024-11-20 cs.LG eess.SP

Zepeng Zhang , Olga Fink This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.SP
keywords graphdomainadaptationunfoldedneuralnetworksbi-leveloptimizationcascadedpropagationsignaldenoisinggeneralizationAPPNPElasticGNN
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

This paper targets graph domain adaptation, where a model trained on a labeled source graph must classify nodes on an unlabeled target graph. The authors focus on unfolded graph neural networks (UGNNs), a family whose message-passing layers are derived from solving an explicit optimization problem, so training is a bi-level optimization. They show empirically that transferring to a new domain inflates the lower-level objective, such as a graph signal denoising loss, and they propose cascaded propagation (CP): run propagation once, feed the output back in as the input, and propagate again. They prove this step cannot increase the lower-level objective, and they demonstrate that three UGNNs equipped with it outperform existing graph domain adaptation methods on citation and social network benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The bi-level optimization view of UGNNs: the lower-level objective is $f_{\mathrm{low}}(H, L, p_{\mathrm{pre}}(\hat{X}, \Theta_{\mathrm{pre}}))$, feeding an upper-level classification loss, and CP is the operation of replacing the input signal by the argmin of the lower-level problem and solving it again. The proof of Theorem 1 turns on Assumption 2, in which $f_{\mathrm{low}}$ decomposes into per-node fidelity, pairwise smoothing, and node-wise constraint terms, with the fidelity term $\kappa$ satisfying $\kappa \ge 0$ and $\kappa(h,h)=0$, so that feeding the solution back as its own input zeros out the fidelity term.

What would settle it

Run a trained UGNN with CP on one of the reported transfer tasks and measure the lower-level objective before and after the fixed K=8 CP steps: if the post-CP value is not lower than the pre-CP value across a meaningful fraction of runs, the theorem's guarantee is not realized by the finite-step implementation. A second check is to increase the number of CP steps and test whether accuracy falls even as the lower-level objective keeps decreasing, which would indicate that reducing that objective is not the driver of the observed gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the architecture of the feature extractor itself is an overlooked lever for graph domain adaptation. For unfolded GNNs, whose forward pass implements gradient steps on a lower-level objective such as graph signal denoising, domain shift causes that objective's value to shoot up on the target graph, and the paper argues this is coupled to a rise in the upper-level classification loss. The proposed fix, cascaded propagation (CP), recycles the lower-level solution as the new input signal and solves the lower-level problem again. Under a mild decomposition assumption on the objective, Theorem 1 guarantees the CP solution has a lower-level objective no larger than the original transfer solution; combined with a distribution-alignment loss such as MMD, the CP-augmented models—APPNP_CP, GPRGNN_CP, and ElasticGNN_CP—report consistently better macro- and micro-F1 scores than the compared baselines over six citation and two social network transfer tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that cascaded propagation never raises the lower-level objective assumes the extra propagation steps reach the exact minimum of that objective, while the model actually runs only a fixed number of steps (eight in the experiments), and that a smaller lower-level objective translates into a smaller upper-level classification loss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CP is an architectural modification, so it can be combined with any domain-alignment loss; in the experiments it is evaluated alongside MMD, and the ablation shows CP adds gains on top of MMD for all three UGNNs.
  • On the six citation-network transfer tasks, the CP-augmented models exceed the best baseline by 0.74% average macro-F1 and 0.92% average micro-F1, and each of the three models individually beats the best baseline on average.
  • Theorem 1 guarantees the lower-level objective does not increase after CP, and Remark 1 notes that repeated CP lowers it further, though very deep CP networks can suffer absolute performance degradation.
  • The strategy is not tied to a particular alignment method or dataset, so the authors expect it to apply to other UGNNs satisfying Assumption 2, including node-, edge-, and graph-level designs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is that the same input-recycling trick could apply to any optimization-unrolled network whose fidelity term is nonnegative and vanishes at identical arguments, not only graph-based UGNNs.
  • Because Theorem 1's guarantee assumes an exact minimizer while the model runs a fixed finite number of steps, a testable prediction is that increasing the number of CP iterations will keep lowering the lower-level objective but may not monotonically improve classification accuracy.
  • The paper's bridge from lower-level objective to classification loss is empirical rather than proven; if that bridge fails, CP could satisfy Theorem 1 while still hurting transfer accuracy on some tasks.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies unfolded graph neural networks (UGNNs) in unsupervised graph domain adaptation. Observing empirically that the lower-level optimization objective of a UGNN (e.g., graph signal denoising for APPNP) increases when the model is transferred from source to target domain, the authors propose cascaded propagation (CP): after solving the lower-level problem, the optimizer is run again with the previous output as the new input. They prove (Theorem 1, Eq. (10)) that, under Assumption 2 and assuming exact minimization, CP cannot increase the lower-level objective. They instantiate CP for APPNP, GPRGNN, and ElasticGNN, combine it with an MMD alignment loss, and report Macro-F1/Micro-F1 improvements over prior GDA methods on six citation-network and two social-network transfer tasks. The paper concludes that CP is a broadly applicable architectural enhancement for UGNNs in domain adaptation.

Significance. If the empirical claim is robust, the contribution is attractive: a simple, architecture-level modification that is orthogonal to representation-alignment methods and applies to a broad family of UGNNs. The paper has notable strengths: it explicitly states assumptions, provides a proof of Theorem 1, evaluates three distinct UGNN families, and reports experiments over eight transfer tasks. The empirical results are consistent in direction. However, the theoretical guarantee is very weak—it concerns only the lower-level objective and is essentially true by construction—and the empirical identification of the CP effect is confounded by doubled propagation depth and missing variance reporting. As such, the central claim that CP improves GDA performance is plausible but not rigorously established in the present manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Domain Adaptive Unfolded Graph Neural Networks, Theorem 1 and Remark 1] Theorem 1 (Eq. (10)) establishes only that f_cp_low <= f_s_to_t_low, and the proof shows this is an immediate consequence of the argmin definition plus Assumption 2. The paper's abstract states that the lower-level increase 'results in an increase in the upper-level objective as well', but no theorem or experiment in the manuscript connects f_low to the classification loss f_up. Table 1 reports only the lower-level GSD objective for APPNP, not the corresponding upper-level loss, and Remark 1 explicitly concedes that reducing f_low does not necessarily improve absolute performance. The theoretical motivation for CP is therefore not load-bearing for the empirical GDA claim; a formal link (e.g., a bound on f_up in terms of f_low under smoothness assumptions) or a direct empirical study of the f_low-to-f_up relationship is needed.
  2. [Proposed Methodology, Eq. (8) and Implementation Details] The proof of Theorem 1 assumes that the CP step produces the exact argmin of f_low(H, Lt, X_s->t). In the implemented models, the second solve is truncated at K additional propagation steps (K=8 in the experiments), as shown in Eqs. (12), (13), and the appendix for ElasticGNN. The finite-step iterate H(2K) is not the exact minimizer, so the inequality in Theorem 1 is not guaranteed to hold for the executed architecture. The paper should either prove a monotone-decrease guarantee for the K-step iterate, empirically verify that f_cp_low <= f_s_to_t_low holds for the trained models, or explicitly present Theorem 1 as an idealized motivation rather than a guarantee for the deployed method.
  3. [Experiments, Tables 2-4 and Implementation Details] The empirical comparison does not control for propagation depth. The CP variants in Examples 2 and 3 use 2K propagation steps (K original plus K cascaded), while the vanilla models and the '+MMD' rows use only K steps. Thus the gains in Tables 2 and 4 attributed to CP may be due to the doubled depth or to the different anchor point (H(K) instead of X) rather than to the specific CP mechanism. A depth-matched baseline—for example, a vanilla model that runs 2K propagation steps without resetting the input to H(K)—is required to isolate CP as the cause of the improvement. Without such a control, the central empirical claim is not identified.
  4. [Experiments, Tables 2, 3, and 4] The paper reports only averages over five seeds, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The reported gains over the best baseline are small on the citation tasks (average Macro-F1 improvement 0.74%, with individual gains around 0.6–1.3%), so without variance information the claim of 'substantial and consistent performance improvement' is not supportable. Please report means with standard deviations (or confidence intervals) and, where appropriate, a statistical test for the key comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'Empirical and theoretical analyses demonstrate' overstates what is shown: the theory covers only the lower-level objective, and the empirical connection to the upper-level loss is not demonstrated. Please align the wording with the actual results.
  2. [Table 3] The row label 'ElasticNetCP' is inconsistent with the model name 'ElasticGNNCP' used elsewhere in the paper; please unify the terminology.
  3. [Figure 1 and Figure 2] The axis label 'T rade-off parameter' contains a typo; it should read 'Trade-off parameter'.
  4. [Appendix, Verification of Assumption 1] The empirical validation of Assumption 1 compares target-trained models with fixed versus free p_pos, but it does not directly compare the actual source-trained model's p_pos to the target-trained one. Please clarify how Figure 3 supports the assumption in the transfer setting.
  5. [Appendix, More Details on ElasticGNN with CP] In Eq. (15) and (16), the variable Z is initialized to Z(0)=0 and then reset to Z(K)=0 in the CP stage, but the formula for Z(k+1) and the projection step are unchanged; please confirm that this reset is intended and not a typographical inconsistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 1's lower-level decrease is definitional; the GDA performance claim is empirical and not derived by the theorem.

  1. self definitional [Proposed Methodology, Eq. (8), Theorem 1 (Eq. (10)) and proof Eqs. (17)–(19)]
    "Specifically, we propose to reset ppre(ˆXt, Θspre) as ¯Xs→t and solve the lower-level problem again. By doing so, we will obtain a new embedding matrix as follows: ¯Xcp ∈ arg min_H flow(H, Lt, ¯Xs→t). (8) ... Given that ¯Xcp ∈ arg min_H flow(H, Lt, ¯Xs→t), we have the following inequality: f cp low = flow(¯Xcp, Lt, ¯Xs→t) ≤ flow(¯Xs→t, Lt, ¯Xs→t). (17)"

    The claimed guarantee is true by construction. Eq. (8) defines the CP embedding as the exact argmin of the same lower-level objective flow(·, Lt, ¯Xs→t), so Eq. (17) is merely the defining property of an argmin. Assumption 2 (κ ≥ 0, κ(h,h)=0) then yields Eq. (19) by re-inserting ¯Xs→t as the anchor, i.e., the re-injection CP performs. Thus f_cp_low ≤ f_s_to_t_low cannot fail and contains no information about the upper-level loss. The paper's Remark 1 concedes that absolute performance does not necessarily improve, so the theorem does not derive the reported GDA gains; those are empirical.

full rationale

The only formal result used to motivate CP is Theorem 1, and that result is a definitional consequence of the CP construction: the new input is the previous output and the new output is the exact minimizer of the same lower-level objective. It is therefore not an independent prediction about upper-level classification, and Remark 1 explicitly says reducing the lower-level objective need not improve absolute performance. The headline empirical claim (UGNNs with CP outperform SOTA GDA methods) is supported by Tables 2–4 and by the ablation in Table 4, so it is not itself reduced by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the unrolling/bi-level view is standard context, and Assumptions 1–2 are stated and empirically checked rather than imported from the authors' own prior work. One further non-circular gap is that the implemented CP uses only K=8 layers rather than the exact argmin assumed in Theorem 1, so even the definitional inequality is not strictly what is executed. Because the paper's formal 'guarantee' reduces to the definition of CP while the main empirical comparison is independent, the appropriate score is partial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the two explicit assumptions in the paper and on a practice-theory bridge. The free parameters are the standard hyperparameters of the UGNNs and the MMD trade-off, all tuned on the source validation split. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Teleport probability α (APPNP, GPRGNN) = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 (grid searched per task)
    Sets the strength of the fidelity term in the lower-level GSD objective; tuned on source validation.
  • ElasticGNN weights λ1, λ2 = 3, 6, 9 (grid searched)
    Weights for smoothness and total variation terms in the ElasticGNN lower-level objective.
  • MMD trade-off ξ = 1 to 5 (grid searched)
    Controls the domain alignment loss weight; selected on source validation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: The post-processing parameters Θ_pos trained on source and target are the same.
    Used to reduce the comparison to the lower-level problem; empirically validated in Appendix Figure 3 but not guaranteed in general.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: The lower-level objective decomposes into κ(h_v, p_pre(x_v)) + ξ(h_u,h_v) + η(h_v) with κ≥0 and κ(h,h)=0.
    Required for Theorem 1; the paper argues most UGNNs satisfy it, listing APPNP, GPRGNN and ElasticGNN.
  • domain assumption The K-step message passing of a UGNN produces the argmin of the lower-level objective (or close enough for the inequality to carry over).
    The theorem uses exact argmins while the implementation uses K=8 propagation steps; no convergence analysis is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain Adaptive Unfolded Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KQOUVXR

@misc{pith2026241113137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain Adaptive Unfolded Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KQOUVXR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13137}
}
read the original abstract

Over the last decade, graph neural networks (GNNs) have made significant progress in numerous graph machine learning tasks. In real-world applications, where domain shifts occur and labels are often unavailable for a new target domain, graph domain adaptation (GDA) approaches have been proposed to facilitate knowledge transfer from the source domain to the target domain. Previous efforts in tackling distribution shifts across domains have mainly focused on aligning the node embedding distributions generated by the GNNs in the source and target domains. However, as the core part of GDA approaches, the impact of the underlying GNN architecture has received limited attention. In this work, we explore this orthogonal direction, i.e., how to facilitate GDA with architectural enhancement. In particular, we consider a class of GNNs that are designed explicitly based on optimization problems, namely unfolded GNNs (UGNNs), whose training process can be represented as bi-level optimization. Empirical and theoretical analyses demonstrate that when transferring from the source domain to the target domain, the lower-level objective value generated by the UGNNs significantly increases, resulting in an increase in the upper-level objective as well. Motivated by this observation, we propose a simple yet effective strategy called cascaded propagation (CP), which is guaranteed to decrease the lower-level objective value. The CP strategy is widely applicable to general UGNNs, and we evaluate its efficacy with three representative UGNN architectures. Extensive experiments on five real-world datasets demonstrate that the UGNNs integrated with CP outperform state-of-the-art GDA baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The results show that when ξ = 0, the model does not perform well, highlighting the importance of minimiz￾ing domain discrepancy. The model with MMD consistently outperforms the model without MMD for ξ in the range of [1,5]. More ablation study results are provided in Appendix.       [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The influence of the trade-off parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Verification of Assumption 1. Since κ(h1, h2) ≥ 0 and κ(h1, h1) = 0 for ∀h1, h2 ∈ RM′ , the following detailed calculation holds: flow X¯ s→t ,L t , X¯ s→t  = X (u,v)∈E ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Ahn, H.; Yang, Y.; Gan, Q.; Wipf, D.; and Moon, T. 2022. Descent Steps of a Relation-Aware Energy Produce Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.11081

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Cai, R.; Wu, F.; Li, Z.; Wei, P.; Yi, L.; and Zhang, K. 2024. Graph domain adaptation: A generative view. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 18(3): 1--24

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Chen, P.; Huang, J.; and Zhang, X. 2013. A primal--dual fixed point algorithm for convex separable minimization with applications to image restoration. Inverse Problems, 29(2): 025011

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Chen, Q.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, J.; and Lin, Z. 2022. Optimization-induced graph implicit nonlinear diffusion. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 3648--3661. PMLR

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Chien, E.; Peng, J.; Li, P.; and Milenkovic, O. 2021. Adaptive Universal Generalized PageRank Graph Neural Network. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  8. [8]

    Dai, Q.; Wu, X.-M.; Xiao, J.; Shen, X.; and Wang, D. 2022. Graph transfer learning via adversarial domain adaptation with graph convolution. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(5): 4908--4922

    2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Feng, R.; Hou, Z.; Derr, T.; and Liu, X. 2023. Robust Graph Neural Networks via Unbiased Aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14934

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Fu, G.; Zhao, P.; and Bian, Y. 2022. p - Laplacian Based Graph Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, 6878--6917. PMLR

    2022

  3. [11]

    Ganin, Y.; and Lempitsky, V. 2015. Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation. In International conference on machine learning, 1180--1189. PMLR

    2015

  4. [12]

    Gasteiger, J.; Bojchevski, A.; and G \"u nnemann, S. 2019. Predict then Propagate: Graph Neural Networks meet Personalized PageRank. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  5. [13]

    M.; Rasch, M

    Gretton, A.; Borgwardt, K. M.; Rasch, M. J.; Sch \"o lkopf, B.; and Smola, A. 2012. A kernel two-sample test. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1): 723--773

    2012

  6. [14]

    Grover, A.; and Leskovec, J. 2016. Node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 855--864

    2016

  7. [15]

    Guo, G.; Wang, C.; Yan, B.; Lou, Y.; Feng, H.; Zhu, J.; Chen, J.; He, F.; and Philip, S. Y. 2023. Learning adaptive node embeddings across graphs. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(6): 6028--6042

    2023

  8. [16]

    Guo, K.; Wen, H.; Jin, W.; Guo, Y.; Tang, J.; and Chang, Y. 2024. Investigating Out-of-Distribution Generalization of GNNs: An Architecture Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08228

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Han, H.; Liu, X.; Mao, H.; Torkamani, M.; Shi, F.; Lee, V.; and Tang, J. 2023. Alternately optimized graph neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 12411--12429. PMLR

    2023

  10. [18]

    Jiang, Z.; Han, X.; Fan, C.; Liu, Z.; Zou, N.; Mostafavi, A.; and Hu, X. 2024. Chasing Fairness in Graphs: A GNN Architecture Perspective. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 21214--21222

    2024

  11. [19]

    Kingma, D.; and Ba, J. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations

    2015

  12. [20]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations

    2017

  13. [21]

    Li, B.; Shen, Y.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.; Ren, J.; Che, T.; Zhang, J.; and Liu, Z. 2023. Sparse Mixture-of-Experts are Domain Generalizable Learners. In Conference on Parsimony and Learning (Recent Spotlight Track)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Liu, M.; Fang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Gu, M.; Zhou, S.; Wang, X.; and Bu, J. 2024. Rethinking Propagation for Unsupervised Graph Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 13963--13971

    2024

  15. [23]

    Liu, S.; Li, T.; Feng, Y.; Tran, N.; Zhao, H.; Qiu, Q.; and Li, P. 2023. Structural re-weighting improves graph domain adaptation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 21778--21793. PMLR

    2023

  16. [24]

    Liu, X.; Jin, W.; Ma, Y.; Li, Y.; Liu, H.; Wang, Y.; Yan, M.; and Tang, J. 2021. Elastic graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, 6837--6849. PMLR

    2021

  17. [25]

    Loris, I.; and Verhoeven, C. 2011. On a generalization of the iterative soft-thresholding algorithm for the case of non-separable penalty. Inverse Problems, 27(12): 125007

    2011

  18. [26]

    Ma, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhao, T.; Liu, Y.; Tang, J.; and Shah, N. 2021. A unified view on graph neural networks as graph signal denoising. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, 1202--1211

    2021

  19. [27]

    Perozzi, B.; Al-Rfou, R.; and Skiena, S. 2014. DeepWalk : Online learning of social representations. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 701--710

    2014

  20. [28]

    Rozemberczki, B.; Allen, C.; and Sarkar, R. 2021. Multi-scale attributed node embedding. Journal of Complex Networks, 9(2): cnab014

    2021

  21. [29]

    Rozemberczki, B.; and Sarkar, R. 2021. Twitch gamers: a dataset for evaluating proximity preserving and structural role-based node embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.03091

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Shen, X.; Dai, Q.; Chung, F.-l.; Lu, W.; and Choi, K.-S. 2020. Adversarial deep network embedding for cross-network node classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, 2991--2999

    2020

  23. [31]

    Shen, X.; Dai, Q.; Mao, S.; Chung, F.-l.; and Choi, K.-S. 2021. Network together: Node classification via cross-network deep network embedding. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32(5): 1935--1948

    2021

  24. [32]

    Shi, B.; Wang, Y.; Guo, F.; Shao, J.; Shen, H.; and Cheng, X. 2023. Improving graph domain adaptation with network hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2249--2258

    2023

  25. [33]

    Shi, B.; Wang, Y.; Guo, F.; Xu, B.; Shen, H.; and Cheng, X. 2024. Graph Domain Adaptation: Challenges, Progress and Prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00904

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tang, J.; Zhang, J.; Yao, L.; Li, J.; Zhang, L.; and Su, Z. 2008. Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 990--998

    2008

  27. [35]

    Veli c kovi \'c , P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Li \`o , P.; and Bengio, Y. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  28. [36]

    Wang, M.; and Deng, W. 2018. Deep visual domain adaptation: A survey. Neurocomputing, 312: 135--153

    2018

  29. [37]

    Wang, Q.; Pang, G.; Salehi, M.; Buntine, W.; and Leckie, C. 2023 a . Cross-domain graph anomaly detection via anomaly-aware contrastive alignment. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 4676--4684

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wang, Y.; Hu, X.; Gan, Q.; Huang, X.; Qiu, X.; and Wipf, D. 2023 b . Efficient Link Prediction via GNN Layers Induced by Negative Sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09516

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wu, J.; He, J.; and Ainsworth, E. 2023. Non- IID transfer learning on graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 10342--10350

    2023

  32. [40]

    Wu, L.; Cui, P.; Pei, J.; and Zhao, L. 2022. Graph Neural Networks: Foundations, Frontiers, and Applications. Singapore: Springer Singapore

    2022

  33. [41]

    Wu, M.; and Pan, S. 2020. Unsupervised domain adaptive graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, 1457--1467

    2020

  34. [42]

    Wu, Z.; Pan, S.; Chen, F.; Long, G.; Zhang, C.; and Philip, S. Y. 2020. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32(1): 4--24

    2020

  35. [43]

    Xu, K.; Hu, W.; Leskovec, J.; and Jegelka, S. 2019. How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  36. [44]

    Xue, R.; Han, H.; Torkamani, M.; Pei, J.; and Liu, X. 2023. Lazygnn: Large-scale graph neural networks via lazy propagation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 38926--38937. PMLR

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yang, Y.; Liu, T.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, J.; Gan, Q.; Wei, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, Z.; and Wipf, D. 2021. Graph neural networks inspired by classical iterative algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, 11773--11783. PMLR

    2021

  38. [46]

    You, Y.; Chen, T.; Wang, Z.; and Shen, Y. 2023. Graph domain adaptation via theory-grounded spectral regularization. In The eleventh international conference on learning representations

    2023

  39. [47]

    Zhang, X.; Du, Y.; Xie, R.; and Wang, C. 2021. Adversarial separation network for cross-network node classification. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 2618--2626

    2021

  40. [48]

    Zhang, Z.; Lu, S.; Huang, Z.; and Zhao, Z. 2022. ASGNN: Graph Neural Networks with Adaptive Structure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01002

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zhang, Z.; and Zhao, Z. 2022. Towards Understanding Graph Neural Networks: An Algorithm Unrolling Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04471

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Y.; He, T.; Qiu, Y.; Wang, M.; and Wipf, D

    Zheng, A. Y.; He, T.; Qiu, Y.; Wang, M.; and Wipf, D. 2024. BloomGML: Graph Machine Learning through the Lens of Bilevel Optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04763

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zhou, J.; Cui, G.; Hu, S.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, C.; Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; and Sun, M. 2020. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI Open, 1: 57--81

    2020

  44. [52]

    Zhu, M.; Wang, X.; Shi, C.; Ji, H.; and Cui, P. 2021. Interpreting and unifying graph neural networks with an optimization framework. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, 1215--1226

    2021

  45. [53]

    Zhu, Q.; Jiao, Y.; Ponomareva, N.; Han, J.; and Perozzi, B. 2023. Explaining and adapting graph conditional shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03256

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.