Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

FedRGL: Robust Federated Graph Learning for Label Noise

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 FedRGL makes federated graph learning robust to label noise by fusing two complementary noisy-node views with contrastive pseudo-labeling, and reports consistent wins over 12 baselines across seven graph datasets.

desk verdict A genuinely new method for label noise in federated subgraph learning, but the SOTA claim is weakened by test-node-entropy reweighting that baselines don't get. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18905 v1 pith:6QCB6DN3 submitted 2024-11-28 cs.LG

De Li , Haodong Qian , Qiyu Li , Zhou Tan , Zemin Gan , Jinyan Wang , Xianxian Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords federatedgraphlearninglabelnoisefilteringcontrastivepseudo-labelingpredictiveentropyrobustaggregationsubgraph
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

The paper tries to establish that label noise in federated graph learning can be handled by a method that filters noisy nodes using two complementary signals: the global model's per-class training loss and a structure-aware label-propagation loss. It then reuses the noisy nodes by giving them high-confidence pseudo-labels through graph contrastive learning, and reweights client contributions by predictive entropy on unlabeled nodes. The authors report that this method, FedRGL, improves test accuracy over 12 baseline methods under uniform and pair label noise, across different noise rates, client numbers, and proportions of noisy clients. If correct, this would make federated graph learning practical in settings where client-side labels are unreliable, which existing federated label-noise methods built for computer vision do not handle well.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the class-aware dual-consistency filter: per-class dynamic thresholds $\rho^c_m = t^c_m + \varphi_1\sigma^c_m$ on global-model cross-entropy losses and $\mu^c_m = t^c_m + \varphi_2\sigma^c_m$ on losses computed against structure-propagated soft labels, where $t^c_m$ and $\sigma^c_m$ are the per-class mean and standard deviation of losses in client $m$. The clean training set is the intersection $V^C_m = V^{C1}_m \cap V^{C2}_m$ of the two views. This intersection, combined with high-confidence pseudo-labels from graph contrastive views and server-side aggregation reweighting by predictive entropy, carries the argument: it is what lets the method identify noisy nodes without a clean-label prior and prevents noisy clients from dominating the global model.

What would settle it

Run FedRGL on a client subgraph where the ground-truth noisy-node mask is known, then compare the selected clean set against that mask at the reported threshold settings. If clean and noisy nodes have heavily overlapping per-class loss histograms, the intersection filter will show low precision or recall on noisy-node detection, and the method's accuracy advantage should shrink accordingly. A direct test: on Cora with 10 clients under pair noise at rate 0.3, compute the per-class loss distributions separately for true clean and true noisy nodes and check whether the reported $\varphi_1,\varphi_2$ thresholds actually separate them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FedRGL's central claim is that label noise in subgraph federated learning can be tamed by combining two independently computed noisy-node filters: one that uses the global model's per-class cross-entropy losses with class-aware dynamic thresholds, and one that uses soft labels obtained from masked label propagation on the local subgraph, also thresholded per class. The final clean set is the intersection of the two filtered sets. Noisy nodes are not discarded; instead, graph contrastive augmentations generate confident pseudo-labels for training and a Jensen-Shannon consistency term stabilizes them. On the server side, client model quality is estimated by predictive entropy on unlabeled nodes, and aggregation weights are inversely proportional to this entropy. The paper reports that this design consistently outperforms 12 baseline methods on Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed, CS, Photo, Physics, and ogbn-arxiv, and that it matches or surpasses existing subgraph FGL methods even when labels are clean.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, for each class in each client, the loss distribution of cleanly labeled nodes can be separated from that of noisy nodes by a threshold at the class mean plus a fixed multiple of the class-loss standard deviation; if the distributions overlap, the filter either keeps noisy nodes or discards clean ones, and the whole method degrades.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FedRGL is correct, federated graph learning can tolerate heterogeneous client-side label noise without requiring a clean public dataset at the server.
  • The class-aware threshold mechanism provides a template for handling class imbalance during noise filtering in non-IID subgraphs, where a single global threshold fails.
  • Predictive entropy on local unlabeled nodes can serve as a data-free proxy for model quality in aggregation, reducing the influence of badly trained clients.
  • Contrastive pseudo-labels let noisy nodes contribute to training without overwriting original labels, which the paper argues avoids error accumulation across rounds.
  • The reported ogbn-arxiv results suggest the method scales to large graphs where existing federated label-noise approaches show little or no gain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the intersection of the two filters likely trades recall for precision, so the method may be conservative when clean and noisy loss distributions overlap; a probabilistic or learned combination could recover some discarded clean nodes.
  • Editorial inference: the predictive-entropy reweighting might also detect Byzantine or adversarially corrupted clients, not only noisy-label clients, since both tend to produce high-uncertainty predictions on local unlabeled nodes.
  • Editorial inference: because the entropy signal relies on transductive unlabeled nodes, applying FedRGL to inductive or graph-level federated tasks would require an alternative model-quality estimator, such as entropy on held-out clean anchors.
  • Editorial inference: the same dual-view filtering signals could be used to estimate each client's local noise rate, enabling personalized or noise-rate-aware local training schedules rather than a shared global threshold schedule.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. FedRGL addresses label noise in subgraph federated graph learning. On each client, it filters noisy training nodes using an intersection of two views: a global-model softmax cross-entropy loss thresholded per class by mean plus phi_1 times the standard deviation (Eqs. 1-4), and a label-propagation-based soft-label loss thresholded by class mean plus phi_2 times the standard deviation (Eqs. 5-6). Filtered noisy nodes receive pseudo-labels from two graph augmentations under a confidence threshold gamma, and local training combines clean cross-entropy, contrastive, pseudo-label, and JS-consistency losses (Eq. 12). Clients upload predictive entropy of unlabeled nodes (Eq. 13), and the server reweights aggregation by inverse entropy (Eq. 14). Experiments on Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed, CS, Physics, Photo, and ogbn-arxiv compare against 12 baselines, with ablations and hyperparameter studies, and report state-of-the-art accuracy under uniform and pair label noise.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, FedRGL would be a valuable first dedicated method for robust federated graph learning under label noise, and the experimental breadth is a genuine strength: six datasets plus a large OGB graph, twelve baselines, ablations, and a hyperparameter sensitivity study. However, the central SOTA claim is weakened by a possible transductive test-set confound in the aggregation rule, by the limited statistical power of three seeds, and by the absence of direct validation of the core noise-filtering assumption. With a clean control experiment and some added diagnostics, the contribution would be substantial and publishable; in its current form the main claim is not fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methodology, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The aggregation weights are computed on test-node predictive entropy: Eq. (13) defines H_m over V^U_m = V^Va_m union V^Te_m, and Eq. (14) uses 1/(H_m+epsilon) to reweight client models on the server. The reported accuracies in Tables 1-3 are evaluated on those same test nodes. This is not label leakage, but it is a test-set-dependent model-selection mechanism that is not available to any of the 12 baselines: at every round the server can favor models that happen to be confident on the held-out nodes. The large margins (e.g., Cora uniform 78.75 vs. CRGNN 61.67 in Table 1) could therefore be driven by this reweighting rule rather than by the class-aware dual-consistency filtering. The paper reports no control experiment in which V^Te_m is removed from H_m, and the ablation removes the reweighting component entirely rather than isolating the test-node dependence. This is load-bearing for the central claim of consistent SOTA performance, and the authors should either provide such a control or revise the claim accordingly.
  2. [Experiment: Implementation Details and Tables 1-3] The empirical claim 'consistently outperforms existing methods' rests on only 3 random seeds, with hyperparameters tuned by Optuna on each dataset. No significance tests are reported, and several margins in Tables 1-3 are within the reported standard deviations. Moreover, the manuscript does not state whether Optuna is optimizing validation accuracy or test accuracy; if test accuracy is used, this adds another layer of test-set selection. The authors should report more seeds, use paired or corrected significance tests, and clarify the Optuna objective.
  3. [Methodology, Eqs. (1)-(6)] The core filtering step assumes that, within each class, the loss distribution is sufficiently separable that a single mean-plus-phi-sigma threshold identifies noisy nodes. This assumption is not directly validated: the paper provides no diagnostic of the overlap between clean and noisy loss distributions, no precision/recall of the filter, and no report of how many nodes are filtered per client. The ablation in Fig. 4(b) shows that both views are needed for good accuracy, but it does not establish that the thresholds are identifying noise rather than discarding high-loss clean nodes or retaining confident noisy nodes. Given that the whole method degrades if this assumption fails, some empirical evidence about the filtering behavior is needed.
  4. [Appendix references throughout] The manuscript repeatedly refers to an Appendix for the algorithm pseudo-code, detailed hyperparameter settings, baseline implementations, noise settings, and additional validation, but no Appendix is present in the submitted text. This missing material is necessary for reproducibility and for verifying claims such as the adaptation of baselines to the federated subgraph setting. The authors should supply the Appendix or move the omitted details into the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3 and accompanying text] The dataset name is spelled 'obgn-arxiv' in Table 3 and in the text, but the correct OGB name is 'ogbn-arxiv'; the table header also contains the typo 'Clinets' instead of 'Clients'.
  2. [Table 1, Cora row for FedProx] In the Cora section, the FedProx row reports the identical value 47.98 +/- 0.42 for both Normal and Uniform noise, which appears to be a copy-paste error and should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The contrastive loss formula in Eq. (8) has corrupted notation: the denominator mixes indices j and i inconsistently, and the second summation uses Z^2_j while the original definition of L_cl is unclear. Please rewrite the equation with consistent index names and explicit positive and negative pairs.
  4. [Figures 2, 4, and 5] Several figure captions and labels contain rendering artifacts (e.g., 'C_Cm' in Fig. 2 and the garbled axis labels in Fig. 4), making the graphs hard to read; the figures should be regenerated with clean fonts.
  5. [Table 3, CRGNN row] The OOM entries for CRGNN at 20 clients should be explained; if CRGNN runs out of memory on ogbn-arxiv, it is unclear how the reported average improvements are computed, and the absence of this baseline should be noted explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Server aggregation weights are computed on test-node entropy, so the reported accuracy advantage is partly an artifact of transductive test-set access.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methodology, 'Local Predictive Entropy' and 'Model Aggregation Reweighting', Eqs. (13)-(14); results in Table 1]
    "the client’s model parameters w^t_m are used to compute the predictive entropy H_m of the unlabeled nodes V^U_m (i.e., V^Va_m and V^Te_m) ... H_m = 1/(H_m + ε), W^{t+1} = Σ_m (H_m / Σ_m H_m) w^t_m"

    The server-side aggregation weight in Eq. (14) is the inverse of the entropy computed in Eq. (13), which explicitly averages over validation and test nodes V^Va_m ∪ V^Te_m. The global model is therefore selected each round to favor client models that are confident on the exact test nodes later used to report the Table 1 accuracies. The 12 baselines do not receive this test-node-informed reweighting, so FedRGL's claimed consistent SOTA margins can arise from test-set-dependent model selection rather than from its robust noise-filtering mechanism; the evaluation set is an input to the model-selection rule by construction.

full rationale

The noise-filtering and pseudo-labeling machinery is not formally circular: per-class thresholds are computed from loss statistics and the clean set is obtained by thresholding, not by the target accuracy. The one load-bearing circular element is the server-side reweighting. Eq. (13) computes predictive entropy H_m on V^Va_m ∪ V^Te_m, and Eq. (14) uses 1/H_m as the aggregation weight; the same V^Te_m nodes are then the evaluation set for the central claim that FedRGL consistently outperforms 12 baselines. This means the aggregation objective contains the evaluation set, so the claimed test-accuracy advantage is partly selected-for rather than independently measured, and the ablation removes the reweighting component as a whole without isolating the test-node contribution. The self-citation of CRGNN appears only as a baseline and noise-setting source and is not load-bearing.

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

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions about noise type, transductive data access, graph homophily, and the validity of loss-threshold and entropy-based heuristics. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • phi_1 = 0.5-2.0 (tuned per dataset via Optuna)
    Threshold scaling for the global model view in the class-aware noise filter.
  • phi_2 = 0.5-2.0 (tuned per dataset via Optuna)
    Threshold scaling for the local structural view in the class-aware noise filter.
  • gamma = 0.5-0.95 (tuned per dataset via Optuna)
    Confidence threshold for assigning pseudo-labels to noisy nodes.
  • lambda_Cl, lambda_P, lambda_Js = Not specified in main text; tuned
    Weights for contrastive loss, pseudo-label loss, and JS divergence loss in Eq. (12).
  • alpha = Not specified in main text; tuned
    Label propagation parameter in Eq. (5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Label noise is confined to training nodes and generated by uniform or pair noise at client-specific rates U(eta_l, eta_u).
    This defines the problem setting; real-world noise may be asymmetric and not confined to training nodes.
  • domain assumption Transductive learning: all node features and graph structure are known during training; only training labels are unavailable for non-training nodes.
    Used to compute predictive entropy on unlabeled nodes; may be unrealistic in some federated deployments.
  • domain assumption Label propagation on the masked subgraph yields a useful structural signal; graph homophily is implicitly assumed.
    The local structural view depends on label propagation accuracy; heterophilous graphs could break it.
  • ad hoc to paper Predictive entropy on unlabeled nodes reflects client model quality; lower entropy means a better model.
    No empirical validation in the paper; used to justify aggregation reweighting.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-class loss distributions are summarized by mean and standard deviation, and the mean plus phi times the standard deviation threshold separates clean from noisy nodes.
    This is a heuristic that is central to the filtering step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedRGL: Robust Federated Graph Learning for Label Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QCB6DN3

@misc{pith2026241118905,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedRGL: Robust Federated Graph Learning for Label Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QCB6DN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18905}
}
read the original abstract

Federated Graph Learning (FGL) is a distributed machine learning paradigm based on graph neural networks, enabling secure and collaborative modeling of local graph data among clients. However, label noise can degrade the global model's generalization performance. Existing federated label noise learning methods, primarily focused on computer vision, often yield suboptimal results when applied to FGL. To address this, we propose a robust federated graph learning method with label noise, termed FedRGL. FedRGL introduces dual-perspective consistency noise node filtering, leveraging both the global model and subgraph structure under class-aware dynamic thresholds. To enhance client-side training, we incorporate graph contrastive learning, which improves encoder robustness and assigns high-confidence pseudo-labels to noisy nodes. Additionally, we measure model quality via predictive entropy of unlabeled nodes, enabling adaptive robust aggregation of the global model. Comparative experiments on multiple real-world graph datasets show that FedRGL outperforms 12 baseline methods across various noise rates, types, and numbers of clients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18905 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 1 Example of Federated Graph Learning with noisy labels. Subgraph data is divided among clients us￾ing the Louvain algorithm (Blondel et al. 2008), with vary￾ing noise levels. The collaboratively trained global model is tested for final performance. , , and represent training nodes, while represents test nodes. 2 Testing accuracy of three FGL algorithms on Cora under uniform label noise at different rates (10 client… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall framework diagram of the FedRGL method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Accuracy on Cora under different levels of label [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the training curves and ablation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis on hyper-parameter in FedRGL. learning, and server reweighting. The global and local views are essential for noise filtering, while removing contrastive learning has minimal effect. Both JS divergence and predic￾tive entropy weighting improve performance. More…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 27 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]

    Akiba, T.; Sano, S.; Yanase, T.; Ohta, T.; and Koyama, M. 2019. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 2623--2631

    2019

  4. [4]

    Baek, J.; Jeong, W.; Jin, J.; Yoon, J.; and Hwang, S. J. 2023. Personalized subgraph federated learning. In International conference on machine learning, 1396--1415. PMLR

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Bang, D.; Lim, S.; Lee, S.; and Kim, S. 2023. Biomedical knowledge graph learning for drug repurposing by extending guilt-by-association to multiple layers. Nature Communications, 14(1): 3570

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    D.; Guillaume, J.-L.; Lambiotte, R.; and Lefebvre, E

    Blondel, V. D.; Guillaume, J.-L.; Lambiotte, R.; and Lefebvre, E. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment, 2008(10): P10008

    2008

  7. [7]

    Cai, L.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; and Ji, S. 2021. Line graph neural networks for link prediction. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(9): 5103--5113

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen, L.-H.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, T.; Su, L.; Lin, Z.; Xiao, X.; Xia, X.; and Liu, T. 2023. ERASE: Error-Resilient Representation Learning on Graphs for Label Noise Tolerance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08852

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Cheng , Y.; Shan , C.; Shen , Y.; Li , X.; Luo , S.; and Li , D. 2023. Resurrecting Label Propagation for Graphs with Heterophily and Label Noise . arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.16560

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Dai, E.; Aggarwal, C.; and Wang, S. 2021. Nrgnn: Learning a label noise resistant graph neural network on sparsely and noisily labeled graphs. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 227--236

    2021

  3. [11]

    Defferrard, M.; Bresson, X.; and Vandergheynst, P. 2016. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29

    2016

  4. [12]

    Fang, X.; and Ye, M. 2022. Robust federated learning with noisy and heterogeneous clients. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 10072--10081

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fu, X.; Wei, Y.; Sun, Q.; Yuan, H.; Wu, J.; Peng, H.; and Li, J. 2023. Hyperbolic geometric graph representation learning for hierarchy-imbalance node classification. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 460--468

    2023

  6. [14]

    Guo, Z.; and Wang, H. 2020. A deep graph neural network-based mechanism for social recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(4): 2776--2783

    2020

  7. [15]

    Han, B.; Yao, Q.; Yu, X.; Niu, G.; Xu, M.; Hu, W.; Tsang, I.; and Sugiyama, M. 2018. Co-teaching: Robust training of deep neural networks with extremely noisy labels. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  8. [16]

    Hu, W.; Fey, M.; Zitnik, M.; Dong, Y.; Ren, H.; Liu, B.; Catasta, M.; and Leskovec, J. 2020. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 22118--22133

    2020

  9. [17]

    Huang, W.; Shi, Z.; Ye, M.; Li, H.; and Du, B. 2024. Self-Driven Entropy Aggregation for Byzantine-Robust Heterogeneous Federated Learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  10. [18]

    Huang, W.; Wan, G.; Ye, M.; and Du, B. 2023. Federated graph semantic and structural learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 3830--3838

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ji, X.; Zhu, Z.; Xi, W.; Gadyatskaya, O.; Song, Z.; Cai, Y.; and Liu, Y. 2024. FedFixer: Mitigating Heterogeneous Label Noise in Federated Learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 12830--12838

    2024

  12. [20]

    Ju, W.; Gu, Y.; Luo, X.; Wang, Y.; Yuan, H.; Zhong, H.; and Zhang, M. 2023. Unsupervised graph-level representation learning with hierarchical contrasts. Neural Networks, 158: 359--368

    2023

  13. [21]

    Li, J.; Li, G.; Cheng, H.; Liao, Z.; and Yu, Y. 2024 a . FedDiv: Collaborative Noise Filtering for Federated Learning with Noisy Labels. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 3118--3126

    2024

  14. [22]

    K.; Zaheer, M.; Sanjabi, M.; Talwalkar, A.; and Smith, V

    Li, T.; Sahu, A. K.; Zaheer, M.; Sanjabi, M.; Talwalkar, A.; and Smith, V. 2020. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks. Proceedings of Machine learning and systems, 2: 429--450

    2020

  15. [23]

    Li, X.; Li, Q.; Qian, H.; Wang, J.; et al. 2024 b . Contrastive learning of graphs under label noise. Neural Networks, 172: 106113

    2024

  16. [24]

    Li, X.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhu, Y.; Li, R.-H.; and Wang, G. 2023 a . FedGTA: Topology-Aware Averaging for Federated Graph Learning. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(1): 41--50

    2023

  17. [25]

    Li, Y.; Han, H.; Shan, S.; and Chen, X. 2023 b . Disc: Learning from noisy labels via dynamic instance-specific selection and correction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 24070--24079

    2023

  18. [26]

    Liu, Y.; Wu, Z.; Lu, Z.; Wen, G.; Ma, J.; Lu, G.; and Zhu, X. 2023. Multi-teacher Self-training for Semi-supervised Node Classification with Noisy Labels. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 2946--2954

    2023

  19. [27]

    Lu, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Han, B.; Cheung, Y.-m.; and Wang, H. 2024. Federated learning with extremely noisy clients via negative distillation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 14184--14192

    2024

  20. [28]

    McMahan, B.; Moore, E.; Ramage, D.; Hampson, S.; and y Arcas, B. A. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, 1273--1282. PMLR

    2017

  21. [29]

    Z.; and Wu, J

    Qian, S.; Ying, H.; Hu, R.; Zhou, J.; Chen, J.; Chen, D. Z.; and Wu, J. 2023. Robust training of graph neural networks via noise governance. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 607--615

    2023

  22. [30]

    Shchur, O.; Mumme, M.; Bojchevski, A.; and G \"u nnemann, S. 2018. Pitfalls of graph neural network evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05868

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Sun, Q.; Li, J.; Peng, H.; Wu, J.; Fu, X.; Ji, C.; and Philip, S. Y. 2022. Graph structure learning with variational information bottleneck. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 4165--4174

    2022

  24. [32]

    Tan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Long, G.; Jiang, J.; Lu, Q.; and Zhang, C. 2023. Federated learning on non-iid graphs via structural knowledge sharing. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 37, 9953--9961

    2023

  25. [33]

    Wan, G.; Huang, W.; and Ye, M. 2024. Federated graph learning under domain shift with generalizable prototypes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 15429--15437

    2024

  26. [34]

    Wu, N.; Yu, L.; Jiang, X.; Cheng, K.-T.; and Yan, Z. 2023. FedNoRo: towards noise-robust federated learning by addressing class imbalance and label noise heterogeneity. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4424--4432

    2023

  27. [35]

    Xia, J.; Lin, H.; Xu, Y.; Tan, C.; Wu, L.; Li, S.; and Li, S. Z. 2023. Gnn cleaner: Label cleaner for graph structured data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(2): 640--651

    2023

  28. [36]

    Xie, H.; Ma, J.; Xiong, L.; and Yang, C. 2021. Federated graph classification over non-iid graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 18839--18852

    2021

  29. [37]

    Q.; and Chong, K

    Xu, J.; Chen, Z.; Quek, T. Q.; and Chong, K. F. E. 2022. Fedcorr: Multi-stage federated learning for label noise correction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 10184--10193

    2022

  30. [38]

    S.; and Wang, T

    Yang, L.; Wang, S.; Tao, Y.; Sun, J.; Liu, X.; Yu, P. S.; and Wang, T. 2023. Dgrec: Graph neural network for recommendation with diversified embedding generation. In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 661--669

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yang, Z.; Cohen, W.; and Salakhudinov, R. 2016. Revisiting semi-supervised learning with graph embeddings. In International conference on machine learning, 40--48. PMLR

    2016

  32. [40]

    Yin, N.; Shen, L.; Wang, M.; Luo, X.; Luo, Z.; and Tao, D. 2023. Omg: Towards effective graph classification against label noise. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(12): 12873--12886

    2023

  33. [41]

    Yuan, H.; Sun, Q.; Fu, X.; Ji, C.; and Li, J. 2024. Dynamic Graph Information Bottleneck. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 469--480

    2024

  34. [42]

    Yuan, J.; Luo, X.; Qin, Y.; Mao, Z.; Ju, W.; and Zhang, M. 2023 a . Alex: Towards effective graph transfer learning with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on multimedia, 3647--3656

    2023

  35. [43]

    Yuan, J.; Luo, X.; Qin, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ju, W.; and Zhang, M. 2023 b . Learning on graphs under label noise. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 1--5. IEEE

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zhang, K.; Yang, C.; Li, X.; Sun, L.; and Yiu, S. M. 2021. Subgraph federated learning with missing neighbor generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 6671--6682

    2021

  37. [45]

    Zhu, J.; Yan, Y.; Zhao, L.; Heimann, M.; Akoglu, L.; and Koutra, D. 2020 a . Beyond homophily in graph neural networks: Current limitations and effective designs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 7793--7804

    2020

  38. [46]

    Zhu, Y.; Li, X.; Wu, Z.; Wu, D.; Hu, M.; and Li, R.-H. 2024. FedTAD: Topology-aware Data-free Knowledge Distillation for Subgraph Federated Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14061

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Yu, F.; Liu, Q.; Wu, S.; and Wang, L. 2020 b . Deep graph contrastive representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04131

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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