Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Unbiased GNN Learning via Fairness-Aware Subgraph Diffusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that FASD debiases graph data by learning bias perturbations in a forward SDE and removing them in reverse diffusion, so a standard GNN trained on the debiased subgraphs yields fairer predictions with minimal accuracy loss.

desk verdict A genuinely new combination of adversarial debiasing and graph diffusion, but the reverse-SDE theory is not what the code implements; the empirical heuristic may still be useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00595 v1 pith:GZJSUU5L submitted 2024-12-31 cs.LG cs.AI

Abdullah Alchihabi , Yuhong Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords fairGNNlearningsubgraphdiffusionscore-basedgenerativemodelsstochasticdifferentialequationsdemographicparityequalopportunityfairness-awaredataaugmentationnodeclassification
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

Fairness-Aware Subgraph Diffusion (FASD) is a pre-processing method for making GNN node classification fairer. It samples many small subgraphs from a large input graph, then pushes them through a forward stochastic-differential-equation diffusion that mixes Gaussian noise with adversary bias perturbations computed from the gradients of a trained sensitive-attribute predictor. Two score-based models learn to predict the total perturbation, and running them backwards from the original clean subgraphs removes the learned bias, yielding debiased subgraphs on which a standard GNN is trained. The paper reports that on NBA, Pokec-z, and Pokec-n this lowers demographic-parity and equal-opportunity violations compared with five fair-GNN baselines, with only a small accuracy cost.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a fairness-aware forward SDE whose perturbation target is a sum of Gaussian noise and scaled negative gradients of the sensitive-attribute prediction loss, plus two permutation-equivariant GNN score models—$s_{\theta,t}$ for node features and $s_{\phi,t}$ for adjacency matrices—trained to predict that target. During reverse diffusion, a Predictor-Corrector sampler uses these score models to update both components of the subgraph so that the learned bias pattern is removed while task-relevant structure is preserved.

What would settle it

Train the sensitive-attribute predictor on the debiased subgraphs $\tilde{G}$ and compare its accuracy with the same predictor trained on the original subgraphs $G$; if the accuracy is not substantially lower, the reverse-diffusion step is not actually removing the bias that FASD claims to remove.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that unfairness in graph data is a learnable signal that can be separated from task-relevant information by a diffusion process. FASD first trains a sensitive-attribute predictor on sampled subgraphs; the gradients of its cross-entropy loss define adversary perturbations that amplify whatever bias the predictor can detect in node features and adjacency matrices. A forward SDE adds these perturbations alongside Gaussian noise, and two score-based models are trained to predict the combined perturbation. The reverse SDE, initialized at the original subgraphs rather than at noise, uses those score models to subtract the learned bias patterns and produce debiased subgraphs. Training an ordinary GNN on these debiased subgraphs then yields the fair node predictions reported for NBA, Pokec-z, and Pokec-n.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the learned reverse diffusion works when started from the original clean subgraph instead of from the fully noised distribution that the forward process ends at; the reverse-time SDE theory cited in the paper does not by itself justify that starting point, so the debiasing effect rests on that transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, fairness-aware graph diffusion can serve as a data-adaptive pre-processing step that is not tied to one assumed bias form, unlike heuristic edge-drop or feature-masking augmentations.
  • Any standard GNN can be trained on the debiased subgraphs, so downstream models need no fairness-specific losses, adversaries, or post-processing.
  • The reported results imply that the fairness-accuracy trade-off on these benchmarks is mild: large parity gains come with a small accuracy drop relative to the strongest baselines.
  • Because the method operates on small sampled subgraphs, it scales to graphs larger than those typical graph-diffusion generators can handle directly.
  • The ablation results imply that both the diffusion process and the fairness-based perturbation term contribute to the fairness gains, since removing either worsens the fairness metrics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to replace the SDE score models with simpler bias-gradient descent: the reverse diffusion is initialized at clean data and run for very few steps, so FASD may be interpretable as a few debiasing steps in the gradient direction rather than as true generative denoising.
  • The quality of the sensitive-attribute predictor gates the whole pipeline: if it cannot detect the bias, the adversary gradients carry no debiasing signal, so FASD's fairness gains likely degrade on datasets where sensitive attributes are hard to predict.
  • The same adversary-gradient perturbation idea could be ported to discrete graph diffusion or contrastive augmentation methods, extending fairness-aware debiasing to categorical features and edge types.
  • The method's fairness is measured only for binary sensitive attributes and two group-fairness metrics; whether the debiasing transfers to multi-class or intersectional protected groups is left open and testable.
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 proposes Fairness-Aware Subgraph Diffusion (FASD), a method for fair node classification. FASD samples small subgraphs from a large graph, perturbs their node features and adjacency matrices with both Gaussian noise and gradients of a learned sensitive-attribute predictor, trains two score-based GNN models to predict these perturbations, and then runs a predictor-corrector reverse diffusion starting from the clean subgraphs to obtain debiased subgraphs. A standard GNN is trained on the debiased subgraphs, and predictions are averaged over subgraphs containing each node. Experiments on NBA, Pokec-z, and Pokec-n report lower demographic parity and equal opportunity violations than several fair-GNN baselines, with modest accuracy differences.

Significance. The idea of injecting fairness-aware adversarial perturbations into a diffusion process and using the learned denoiser to remove bias is interesting, and the paper includes useful ablations and sensitivity analyses. The empirical results are suggestive, though not definitive. However, the central theoretical claim that the procedure is a generative fairness-aware graph diffusion process based on stochastic differential equations is not supported by the manuscript. The training objective in Eq. (9) does not estimate the score of the forward-perturbed distribution, and Algorithm 3 starts the reverse process from the clean data distribution rather than the time-T marginal. These are load-bearing issues: they invalidate the Anderson/Song reverse-time-SDE justification for Eq. (10), so at present the method is best characterized as a heuristic iterative adversarial debiasing procedure rather than a diffusion-based debiasing method with the claimed generative grounding.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.2.3, Eqs. (5), (9), (10)] The regression target in Eq. (9) is not the score of the forward-perturbed distribution. From Eq. (5), conditional on G0, the perturbed features satisfy X_t = μ_t X0 + σ_t ε_X - γ_X ∇_X L_sen(X0,A0), so the conditional score is ∇_{X_t} log p(X_t|X0) = -(X_t - μ_t X0 + γ_X ∇_X L_sen)/σ_t^2 = -ε_X/σ_t. The target in Eq. (9), however, is ε_X - (γ_X/σ_t)∇_X L_sen, which contains an extra sensitive-gradient term and is not the score. Thus sθ,t is a debiasing denoiser, not an estimator of the score ∇ log p_t, and substituting it into the reverse-time SDE in Eq. (10) does not implement the reverse process of Anderson (1982) or Song et al. (2020). The same issue applies to sϕ,t for the adjacency matrix. This is a fundamental mismatch between the training objective and the generative diffusion interpretation.
  2. [Appendix D, Algorithm 3] Algorithm 3 initializes X_Nsteps and A_Nsteps to the clean input subgraph, rather than to a sample from the time-T marginal p_T of the forward process. The reverse-time SDE theorem requires the reverse process to start from p_T; starting from the clean data distribution p_0 and running the backward Euler-Maruyama and Langevin updates is not the time-reversal of the forward diffusion. Even if the score models were correctly trained, this initialization breaks the theoretical justification for Eq. (10). The use of a small number of steps (Nsteps = 2-5) further distances the discrete procedure from the continuous reverse SDE it is claimed to approximate.
  3. [3.2.2, Eqs. (2) and (5)] The forward process is not consistently defined as an SDE. Eq. (2) states a general SDE with drift f_t(G_t) depending on the current state, but the explicit perturbation in Eq. (5) uses fairness gradients evaluated at the initial subgraph (X0,A0). The resulting transition kernel is a Gaussian with a fixed adversarial shift that depends on G0, which is not the transition kernel of a Markovian SDE over G_t. Consequently, the reverse-time SDE in Eq. (10) is not derived from a well-specified forward SDE, independent of the score-estimation issue.
  4. [4.1, Appendix F, Table 1] The empirical comparison is weakened by the fact that baseline results are taken from a prior paper: Appendix F states 'For the results of comparison methods, we refer to the outcomes from [22]'. Since FASD is evaluated in a different experimental pipeline, the baseline numbers are not directly comparable, and no significance tests are reported. The fairness improvements over baselines therefore should be treated as preliminary rather than as established superiority.
minor comments (5)
  1. [1, Introduction] The phrase 'GNNs have been show to be susceptible' contains a typo; it should be 'shown'.
  2. [3.2.4, Eq. (10)] The reverse-time notation d\bar{t}, \bar{w}_1, and \bar{w}_2 is introduced without defining the reversed time parameterization; this makes the equation harder to follow.
  3. [3.2.2, Eq. (6)] The definitions of γ_X and γ_A use norms of stochastic perturbations and fairness gradients, but the formulas are not dimensionally checked against the different scales of X and A; a brief justification of the scaling would improve clarity.
  4. [4.3, Table 2] The ablation study would be more informative if the w/o Fairness variant also reported results for larger Nsteps, since the full method uses different Nsteps values per dataset and the comparison may conflate step-count effects with the fairness perturbation effect.
  5. [5, Conclusion] The conclusion describes the method as validating its effectiveness, but it does not mention the theoretical limitations discussed in the body; a sentence acknowledging the assumptions behind the reverse-diffusion step would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

FASD's debiasing is a closed loop: the score models are trained to predict the sensitive-gradient perturbation the method itself injects, and the reverse process then subtracts it; the generative SDE framing is not independently load-bearing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2.3-3.2.4, Eqs. (5), (9), (18); Algorithm 3]
    "we utilize the score-based models, sθ,t and sϕ,t, learned from the forward diffusion process to estimate perturbations and further reduce the bias patterns in the input subgraph instances through a fairness-aware reverse diffusion process"

    The forward perturbation in Eq. (5) is X_t = μ_t X_0 + σ_t ε_X − γ_X ∇_X L_sen(X_0,A_0), with an analogous A_t. Equation (9) trains sθ,t by regressing onto ε_X − (γ_X/σ_t)∇_X L_sen(X_0,A_0), i.e., exactly the perturbation injected in the forward pass, not onto ∇ log p_t. The reverse update in Eq. (18) then adds β sθ,t, which by construction subtracts the fitted sensitive-gradient term from the same subgraphs. Algorithm 3 starts the reverse process at the clean input subgraph, so the output is a deterministic transform of that input. The 'debiased' subgraph is therefore the input minus a gradient of a sensitive-attribute classifier trained on that input; no independent unbiased distribution is estimated.

full rationale

The main circularity is methodological rather than citation-based. The paper defines its debiasing target through g_sen, fits score models to that self-injected perturbation, and removes it in reverse. That is a closed loop: the 'bias dynamics' learned are the dynamics the method itself created. The independent fairness metrics (ΔDP, ΔEO) and the ablation study provide external grounding, which prevents a score of 8-10; the method may genuinely reduce measured unfairness. However, the central 'generative fairness-aware diffusion' claim is not supported: Eq. (9) does not estimate the score of the forward-perturbed distribution, so Eq. (10) is not Anderson's reverse-time SDE, and Algorithm 3's clean-data initialization violates the requirement to start at the terminal forward marginal. These are correctness problems, not additional circularity, so they are not counted as separate steps. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is present. Score 6 reflects that the core 'prediction' (debiased subgraph) is statistically forced by the fitted perturbation, while the external evaluation keeps the paper from being entirely circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several fitted hyperparameters and on assumptions about bias being captured by the gradients of a learned sensitive-attribute predictor. Most critically, the validity of reverse diffusion from clean data is assumed without proof.

free parameters (6)
  • Sensitive-attribute predictor gsen (learned parameters) = Trained weights on subgraph data via cross-entropy loss
    The adversarial perturbation directions ∇X Lsen and ∇A Lsen depend entirely on this fitted model; it defines what bias is removed.
  • λX and λA = 0.1 for NBA, 10 for Pokec-z and Pokec-n
    Chosen per dataset from sensitivity analysis; control the strength of the fairness perturbation in Eq. 5.
  • Nsteps = 5 for NBA, 4 for Pokec-z, 2 for Pokec-n
    Number of reverse-diffusion steps, tuned per dataset based on the sensitivity curves in Figure 2.
  • Edge pruning threshold τ = 0.5
    Threshold for pruning weak edges after reverse diffusion; chosen by hand with no ablation.
  • Subgraph sampling depth d and neighbor count k = d=2 for NBA, d=3 for Pokec; k=10
    Set by hand; these control the scale of the subgraphs and hence what biases can be captured.
  • Perturbation kernel rates βmin and βmax = 0.1 and 1.0
    Standard kernel hyperparameters inherited from Song et al., set by hand.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The reverse-time SDE from Anderson (1982) applies to the PC sampler even when initialized at the clean subgraph distribution rather than the time-T marginal of the forward SDE.
    Algorithm 3 starts at X_Nsteps set to X instead of at the noise-dominated distribution; this is not a consequence of the referenced theory.
  • domain assumption Gradients of the sensitive-attribute predictor's cross-entropy loss with respect to X and A are an adequate measure of graph bias and can be subtracted without destroying task-relevant information.
    No formal connection between ∇Lsen and demographic parity or equal opportunity is provided; the method assumes bias is linearly removable in feature and adjacency space.
  • domain assumption Debiasing depth-2 or depth-3 sampled subgraphs transfers to the full input graph and to nodes outside the sampled subgraphs.
    Inference averages predictions over subgraphs containing a node, but there is no analysis that local debiasing is sufficient for global fairness.
  • ad hoc to paper Score models trained on forward-perturbed data generalize to clean inputs during the reverse pass.
    The predictor and corrector consume clean subgraphs at t=Nsteps, but training only produced X_t from X_0 with stochastic and adversarial noise. The paper does not justify this distribution shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unbiased GNN Learning via Fairness-Aware Subgraph Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZJSUU5L

@misc{pith2026250100595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unbiased GNN Learning via Fairness-Aware Subgraph Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZJSUU5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00595}
}
read the original abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated remarkable efficacy in tackling a wide array of graph-related tasks across diverse domains. However, a significant challenge lies in their propensity to generate biased predictions, particularly with respect to sensitive node attributes such as age and gender. These biases, inherent in many machine learning models, are amplified in GNNs due to the message-passing mechanism, which allows nodes to influence each other, rendering the task of making fair predictions notably challenging. This issue is particularly pertinent in critical domains where model fairness holds paramount importance. In this paper, we propose a novel generative Fairness-Aware Subgraph Diffusion (FASD) method for unbiased GNN learning. The method initiates by strategically sampling small subgraphs from the original large input graph, and then proceeds to conduct subgraph debiasing via generative fairness-aware graph diffusion processes based on stochastic differential equations (SDEs). To effectively diffuse unfairness in the input data, we introduce additional adversary bias perturbations to the subgraphs during the forward diffusion process, and train score-based models to predict these applied perturbations, enabling them to learn the underlying dynamics of the biases present in the data. Subsequently, the trained score-based models are utilized to further debias the original subgraph samples through the reverse diffusion process. Finally, FASD induces fair node predictions on the input graph by performing standard GNN learning on the debiased subgraphs. Experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed method over state-of-the-art Fair GNN baselines across multiple benchmark datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed FASD method. (a) Fairness-Aware Forward Diffusion Process. Subgraphs G sampled from the input graph G undergo stochastic and fairness-based perturbations within the forward subgraph diffusion process. Score-based models sθ,t and sϕ,t are trained to approximate these perturbations by minimizing losses Lθ and Lϕ, respectively. (b) Subgraph Debiasing and fair node classification. The sampled su… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis for our proposed FASD method in terms of Accuracy Vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis for our proposed FASD method in terms of Accuracy Vs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    H. Ling, Z. Jiang, Y . Luo, S. Ji, and N. Zou. Learning fair graph representations via automated data augmentations. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Agarwal, H

    C. Agarwal, H. Lakkaraju, and M. Zitnik. Towards a unified framework for fair and stable graph representation learning. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    B. D. Anderson. Reverse-time diffusion equation models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12(3):313–326, 1982

    1982

  4. [3]

    J. Baek, M. Kang, and S. J. Hwang. Accurate learning of graph representations with graph multiset pooling. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Beutel, J

    A. Beutel, J. Chen, Z. Zhao, and E. H. Chi. Data decisions and theoretical implications when adversarially learning fair representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00075, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Bose and W

    A. Bose and W. Hamilton. Compositional fairness constraints for graph embeddings. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Choudhary, C

    M. Choudhary, C. Laclau, and C. Largeron. A survey on fairness for machine learning on graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05396, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Creager, D

    E. Creager, D. Madras, J.-H. Jacobsen, M. Weis, K. Swersky, T. Pitassi, and R. Zemel. Flexibly fair representation learning by disentanglement. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Dai and S

    E. Dai and S. Wang. Say no to the discrimination: Learning fair graph neural networks with limited sensitive attribute information. In International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Y . Dong, J. Kang, H. Tong, and J. Li. Individual fairness for graph neural networks: A ranking based approach. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Y . Dong, N. Liu, B. Jalaian, and J. Li. Edits: Modeling and mitigating data bias for graph neural networks. In International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Dwork, M

    C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, and R. Zemel. Fairness through awareness. In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2012

    2012

  5. [12]

    Fisher, A

    J. Fisher, A. Mittal, D. Palfrey, and C. Christodoulopoulos. Debiasing knowledge graph embeddings. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Grover and J

    A. Grover and J. Leskovec. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    K. K. Haefeli, K. Martinkus, N. Perraudin, and R. Wattenhofer. Diffusion models for graphs benefit from discrete state spaces. In NeurIPS Workshop: New Frontiers in Graph Learning, 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Hardt, E

    M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2016

    2016

  9. [16]

    J. Jo, S. Lee, and S. J. Hwang. Score-based generative modeling of graphs via the system of stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Kamiran and T

    F. Kamiran and T. Calders. Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimina- tion. Knowledge and Information Systems, 33(1):1–33, 2012

    2012

  11. [18]

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen. Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1992. 10

    1992

  13. [20]

    L. Kong, J. Cui, H. Sun, Y . Zhuang, B. A. Prakash, and C. Zhang. Autoregressive diffusion model for graph generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    O. D. Kose and Y . Shen. Fair node representation learning via adaptive data augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08549, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    C. Liu, W. Fan, Y . Liu, J. Li, H. Li, H. Liu, J. Tang, and Q. Li. Generative diffusion models on graphs: methods and applications. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Mehrabi, F

    N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(6):1–35, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    G. Parisi. Correlation functions and computer simulations. Nuclear Physics B, 180(3):378–384, 1981

    1981

  18. [26]

    Pleiss, M

    G. Pleiss, M. Raghavan, F. Wu, J. Kleinberg, and K. Q. Weinberger. On fairness and calibration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Rahman, B

    T. Rahman, B. Surma, M. Backes, and Y . Zhang. Fairwalk: towards fair graph embedding. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Rajkomar, M

    A. Rajkomar, M. Hardt, M. D. Howell, G. Corrado, and M. H. Chin. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Annals of Internal Medicine , 169(12):866–872, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Sharma, S

    K. Sharma, S. Kumar, and R. Trivedi. Plug-and-play controllable graph generation with diffusion models. In ICML Workshop on Structured Probabilistic Inference & Generative Modeling , 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Spinelli, S

    I. Spinelli, S. Scardapane, A. Hussain, and A. Uncini. Fairdrop: Biased edge dropout for enhancing fairness in graph representation learning.IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 3(3):344–354, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Takac and M

    L. Takac and M. Zabovsky. Data analysis in public social networks. In International scientific conference and international workshop present day trends of innovations, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Vignac, I

    C. Vignac, I. Krawczuk, A. Siraudin, B. Wang, V . Cevher, and P. Frossard. Digress: Discrete de- noising diffusion for graph generation. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    S. Wu, Y . Tang, Y . Zhu, L. Wang, X. Xie, and T. Tan. Session-based recommendation with graph neural networks. In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Xiong, Z

    J. Xiong, Z. Xiong, K. Chen, H. Jiang, and M. Zheng. Graph neural networks for automated de novo drug design. Drug discovery today, 26(6):1382–1393, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    M. B. Zafar, I. Valera, M. Gomez Rodriguez, and K. P. Gummadi. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Zemel, Y

    R. Zemel, Y . Wu, K. Swersky, T. Pitassi, and C. Dwork. Learning fair representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

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

    2006 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y . Zhu, Y . Xu, F. Yu, Q. Liu, S. Wu, and L. Wang. Graph contrastive learning with adaptive augmentation. In International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2021. 11 A Subgraph Sampling Procedure The details of the subgraph sampling procedure are presented in Algorithm 1. Algo...

    2021

Pith tools

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