Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

LOHA: Direct Graph Spectral Contrastive Learning Between Low-pass and High-pass Views

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 LOHA treats low-pass and high-pass spectral views as mutual negatives and reunites features with a spectral signal trend, reaching 77.1% average accuracy and beating fully supervised models on heterophilic graphs.

desk verdict Strong empirical paper on direct low/high-pass contrastive learning, but the theoretical justification for the composite feature rests on an invalid spectral bound and should be revised or cut. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02969 v1 pith:QYXNJAGM submitted 2025-01-06 cs.LG

Ziyun Zou , Yinghui Jiang , Lian Shen , Juan Liu , Xiangrong Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords graphcontrastivelearningspectralneuralnetworkslow-passfiltershigh-passheterophilicgraphsself-supervisednodeclassificationsignaltrendChebyshevpolynomialapproximation
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 argues that the natural opposite behaviors of low-pass and high-pass graph filters can be used directly as contrastive views in self-supervised learning, without data augmentation. The LOHA framework pushes the low-pass and high-pass embeddings of the same node apart, treating them as mutual negatives, while a composite feature built from the spectral signal trend (the degree-normalized difference between a node's features and its neighbors' features) acts as a stable landmark to keep each node identifiable. If this works as claimed, label-free graph representation learning can match or beat fully supervised methods on heterophilic graphs, where connected nodes tend to have different labels and features. The paper reports 77.1% average node-classification accuracy over nine real-world datasets, 2.8% above the runner-up, and results that surpass fully supervised baselines on all heterophilic datasets tested.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spectral signal trend $T_r(x_i)=\left(x_i/\sqrt{d_i}-\sum_{j\in n_i^1}x_j/\sqrt{d_j}\right)^2$, a per-node feature that measures how a node's attribute vector changes against its degree-normalized neighborhood aggregate. The composite feature $C_-(z^l_i,z^h_i)=\|U(g_l(\Lambda)-g_h(\Lambda))U^\top \Delta x_i\|$ combines the two views by subtraction, which Theorem 1's concentration bound suggests is the more stable choice because smaller maximum eigenvalues tighten the bound; this composite feature powers the reunion loss $L_{sf}$ that keeps a node identifiable after its low- and high-pass embeddings are pushed apart. The views themselves are generated by sliding cosine-parameterized Chebyshev polynomial filters, which interpolate the filter response and enforce strictly ordered low-pass and high-pass sequences.

What would settle it

Compute the empirical variance of the composite feature $C_-(z^l_i,z^h_i)$ for fixed nodes across training epochs while the filters update; if it drifts as much as the raw low-pass or high-pass embeddings, the stability premise of Theorem 1 is contradicted and the reunion loss is not acting as the claimed fixed landmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the natural opposition between low-pass and high-pass spectral filters is the right source of contrastive views for self-supervised graph learning, provided the model also reunites each node's split features with a composite landmark. It defines the spectral signal trend $T_r(x_i)=\left(x_i/\sqrt{d_i}-\sum_{j\in n_i^1}x_j/\sqrt{d_j}\right)^2$, the squared degree-normalized difference between a node's features and its one-hop neighborhood aggregate, and uses the filtered version $C_-(z^l_i,z^h_i)=\|U(g_l(\Lambda)-g_h(\Lambda))U^\top \Delta x_i\|$ as the landmark. The training loss $L=L_l+L_h+\mu L_{sf}$ directly makes $z^l_i$ and $z^h_i$ mutual negatives while pulling the full-pass embedding $z^f_i$ toward the low-pass, high-pass, and composite features. The paper reports 77.1% mean accuracy across nine benchmark graphs, 2.8% above the runner-up, and LOHA outperforms fully supervised models on every heterophilic dataset tested.

Load-bearing premise

The design of the reunion loss assumes that the spectral signal trend between low-pass and high-pass views remains stable enough to act as a fixed landmark while filters are learned; the paper's proof of that stability is deferred to an appendix and rests on a bound on filtered features that is not generally valid for spectral graph filtering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Self-supervised graph representation learning can drop hand-crafted data augmentations: the low-pass/high-pass opposition supplies the contrastive signal directly.
  • Heterophilic graphs become a favorable regime for contrastive learning: LOHA reports higher accuracy than fully supervised baselines on Cornell, Texas, Wisconsin, Actor, Chameleon, and Amazon ratings.
  • Ablation results indicate the three loss terms are complementary: removing the direct contrast term causes the largest drop, removing the reunion term hurts most on homophilic graphs like Cora, and the sliding filter parameterization adds consistent small gains.
  • The framework transfers across filter parameterizations, since substituting LOHA's loss into the runner-up PolyGCL's pipeline still improves accuracy on most datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to generalize the spectral signal trend beyond one-hop neighbors, with k-hop or attention-weighted aggregates, which may help on graphs with longer-range heterophily.
  • The composite-feature recipe is separable from the specific Chebyshev parameterization, so it could be grafted onto other spectral self-supervised methods that currently maximize agreement between augmented views instead of opposing low- and high-pass filters.
  • The theory predicts a stability ordering between subtraction and addition composites; directly comparing $C_-$ and $C_+$ across graphs with different spectral radii would test whether the concentration argument, rather than the flexible filters, drives the gains.
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 / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LOHA, a self-supervised graph contrastive learning framework that directly contrasts low-pass and high-pass spectral views as negative samples, and introduces a composite feature based on a 'spectral signal trend' to reunite the separated node features. The method combines a separation loss (L_l + L_h) with a reunion loss (L_sf), and experiments on nine datasets report an average accuracy of 77.1%, surpassing previous self-supervised baselines and, on heterophilic datasets, fully supervised models. The paper includes ablations supporting the contributions of the individual loss components.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, LOHA would be a state-of-the-art self-supervised node classifier, particularly strong on heterophilic graphs, and the idea of using opposing spectral filters as natural negatives without augmentation is an interesting departure from prior augmentation-based contrastive methods. The paper provides extensive experiments and ablations, including a demo experiment suggesting that the gains are not solely due to filter complexity. However, the theoretical support for the composite feature is not rigorous; the key concentration bound relies on an unjustified assumption, and the choice of subtraction over addition is not demonstrated. The contribution is therefore primarily empirical as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theoretical Analysis, Eq. (7)] The paper assumes that for a graph filtering operation Ug(Λ)U^T X, the entrywise maximum of the filtered feature X' is bounded by max(λ')·B, where max(λ') is the largest eigenvalue of the filter matrix. This bound is not valid for general spectral filters: the correct entrywise bound involves the induced ∞-norm of Ug(Λ)U^T, which can substantially exceed the largest eigenvalue on graphs with high degree or for higher-order polynomial filters. For example, the filter I + \hat{A} used in Eq. (2) has largest eigenvalue 2, but its maximum absolute row sum can be larger on irregular graphs. Since Theorem 1 and the subsequent stability comparison of C- versus C+ rest on this assumption, the theoretical conclusion that subtraction is more stable than addition is unsupported.
  2. [Theoretical Analysis, after Eq. (7)] Even if the bound in Eq. (7) were valid, the paper immediately concludes 'we subtract low-pass and high-pass views' for the composite feature. This requires that max(λ') for (g_l - g_h) is smaller than max(λ') for (g_l + g_h), but the paper does not prove this for the filters in Eq. (9). For the simplest filters in Eq. (2), (g_l + g_h) = 2I has eigenvalue 2, while (g_l - g_h) = -2Λ has largest eigenvalue 0 but largest absolute eigenvalue 2λ_max, which can exceed 2. No analytical or empirical comparison of these quantities is provided for the actual learned filters, so the design choice of C- is not justified.
  3. [Theoretical Analysis, Eq. (6) and Abstract] The abstract and introduction claim that the spectral signal trend is 'relatively unaffected by changing filters' and 'focuses solely on original feature differences.' However, the composite feature in Eq. (6) is defined as ||UΔg(Λ)U^T Δx_i||, which explicitly depends on the learned filter Δg(Λ). Similarly, Eq. (5) depends on the graph degree and neighbor features, not solely on original node features. The theoretical analysis therefore applies to a quantity that is not the one used in the loss L_sf, and the claimed filter-independent stability of the composite feature is contradicted by its definition.
  4. [Loss Design, Eq. (13)] The loss L_sf contrasts the learned final embedding zf_i with C-(zl_i, zh_i), but the definition of C- in Eq. (13) is a norm of a filtered version of the original feature difference Δx_i, not a function of the learned embeddings zl_i and zh_i. This is not a standard InfoNCE pairing, and the paper does not explain the mechanism by which aligning zf_i with this norm improves the learned filters or representations. As written, L_sf is closer to a regularizer than a contrastive objective; the paper should either provide a theoretical account of its effect or explicitly characterize it as a regularization term.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Equation (5)] The sentence 'for n1 ∈ n1_i stands for the 1-hop neighbors of node i' is garbled; it should read 'where n1_i denotes the set of 1-hop neighbors of node i.'
  2. [Equation (12)] The denominator of L_l includes s(zl_i, zh_i), and the denominator of L_h also includes s(zl_i, zh_i); the paper should clarify why the same-node cross-view term is treated as a negative for both losses and whether this double counting is intentional.
  3. [Table 2] The sentence 'LOHA surpasses all baseline models on 7 out of 9 benchmarks' is ambiguous because on Cora and Citeseer, the self-supervised baseline PolyGCL outperforms LOHA; please specify that LOHA is best among self-supervised baselines, and note the tie on PubMed.
  4. [Related Work] The mention of 'SpCo (2022)' lacks a citation; either add the reference or remove the mention.
  5. [Equations (14) and (15)] The definitions of Tr1 and Tr3 are unclear: the operations 'mean' and 'std' are applied to vector arguments, and the resulting dimensions are not specified; please clarify the notation.
  6. [Figure 3 and text] The paper uses both 'Lsp' and 'Lsf' to refer to the reunion loss (e.g., 'w/o Lsp' in the variant list versus Eq. (13)); please unify the terminology.
  7. [Table 1] The demo experiments in Table 1 do not specify how the band-stop and band-pass filters are integrated into the PolyGCL framework; please provide implementation details or a reference to the appendix.
  8. [Equation (9)] The claim that the sliding parameter ensures the γ_i sequences 'will not intersect' should be explained more explicitly, as the monotonicity of the cosine term may not guarantee non-intersection for all parameter values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; LOHA's empirical claims rest on independent benchmarks, and the theoretical stability argument raises correctness concerns rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: the LOHA contrastive objective improves node classification on held-out splits of nine standard datasets. All loss terms are standard InfoNCE-style objectives over low-, high-, and full-pass views, and the composite feature in Eq. 6 and L_sf in Eq. 13 are constructed from the same learned filters and embeddings. This is a training objective or regularizer, not a fitted quantity being re-sold as a prediction: no independent target for C is fit and then reported as if it were external. The choice of subtraction over addition is justified by Theorem 1, but that justification rests on an assumption (max|X'| ≤ max(λ')·B) that is mathematically questionable for general spectral filters; that affects correctness and support, not circularity. Background self-citations (e.g., Jiang et al. 2023, Ruan et al. 2023) are not load-bearing, and the proof of Theorem 1 is deferred to an appendix, which is a missing-support concern but not a circular step. No equation or parameter reduces by construction to another input, and no claim is forced by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method's central design choices rest on a small number of trainable parameters and several unverified assumptions. The theorem that justifies the composite feature depends on a questionable max-norm bound and on independence assumptions from prior work that are not validated for the actual graph data.

free parameters (5)
  • Low/high filter parameters β_a, β_b = 0, 2, 2, 2 (initial)
    Shape the frequency response in Eq. 9.
  • Sliding parameters δ_l, δ_h = 0 (initial)
    Added for filter flexibility in Eq. 9.
  • Combination weights α, β = learned, not reported
    Used for final embedding Z_f = αZ_l + βZ_h.
  • Loss weight μ = not reported
    Balances L_sf in Eq. 11.
  • Temperature τ = not reported
    In contrastive similarity in Eq. 12.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Features X are bounded entrywise by B, and the filtered feature X' satisfies max|X'| ≤ max(λ')·B.
    Used to bound the concentration in Theorem 1; the inequality is not generally true for orthogonal transforms.
  • domain assumption The concentration bound of Ma et al. (2022) applies to C_i, assuming node features are i.i.d. and independent across dimensions.
    Borrowed assumptions that may not hold for real graph features.
  • ad hoc to paper The spectral signal trend is relatively stable across different filters.
    Stated after Definition 2, but the composite feature C in Eq. 6 depends on the filters, so the stability claim is unproven.
  • ad hoc to paper The maximum eigenvalue of (g_l - g_h) is smaller than that of (g_l + g_h).
    Used to justify subtraction; no derivation is provided, and for the simple filters in Eq. 2 the comparison is ambiguous.
invented entities (1)
  • Spectral Signal Trend (Tr)
    purpose: Serve as a stable composite feature to reunite node features after the contrastive separation of low-pass and high-pass views.
    New quantity defined in Eq. 5; claimed to be filter-invariant but no independent validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LOHA: Direct Graph Spectral Contrastive Learning Between Low-pass and High-pass Views." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYXNJAGM

@misc{pith2026250102969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LOHA: Direct Graph Spectral Contrastive Learning Between Low-pass and High-pass Views},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYXNJAGM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02969}
}
read the original abstract

Spectral Graph Neural Networks effectively handle graphs with different homophily levels, with low-pass filter mining feature smoothness and high-pass filter capturing differences. When these distinct filters could naturally form two opposite views for self-supervised learning, the commonalities between the counterparts for the same node remain unexplored, leading to suboptimal performance. In this paper, a simple yet effective self-supervised contrastive framework, LOHA, is proposed to address this gap. LOHA optimally leverages low-pass and high-pass views by embracing "harmony in diversity". Rather than solely maximizing the difference between these distinct views, which may lead to feature separation, LOHA harmonizes the diversity by treating the propagation of graph signals from both views as a composite feature. Specifically, a novel high-dimensional feature named spectral signal trend is proposed to serve as the basis for the composite feature, which remains relatively unaffected by changing filters and focuses solely on original feature differences. LOHA achieves an average performance improvement of 2.8% over runner-up models on 9 real-world datasets with varying homophily levels. Notably, LOHA even surpasses fully-supervised models on several datasets, which underscores the potential of LOHA in advancing the efficacy of spectral GNNs for diverse graph structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Initialized filters for demo experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration for the overall Pipeline of LOHA. Based on the natural opposite specialties between low-pass view and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experiments results for ablation study between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spatiotemporal Causal Decoupling Model for Air Quality Forecasting

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    AirCade, a Transformer-based air quality forecaster with attention masking and future weather inputs, reports up to 25% relative MAPE improvement on the KnowAir dataset, though the causal mechanism is not validated.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bo, D.; Wang, X.; Shi, C.; and Shen, H. 2021. Beyond Low-frequency Information in Graph Convolutional Networks. In AAAI . AAAI Press

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Chen, J.; Lei, R.; and Wei, Z. 2024. Poly GCL : GRAPH CONTRASTIVE LEARNING via Learnable Spectral Polynomial Filters. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Chen, T.; Kornblith, S.; Norouzi, M.; and Hinton, G. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, 1597--1607. PMLR

    2020

  4. [4]

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

    2021

  5. [5]

    Defferrard, M.; Bresson, X.; and Vandergheynst, P. 2016. Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Fast Localized Spectral Filtering. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Ghose, A.; Zhang, Y.; Hao, J.; and Coates, M. 2023. Spectral augmentations for graph contrastive learning. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 11213--11266. PMLR

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Guo, X.; Wang, Y.; Wei, Z.; and Wang, Y. 2023. Architecture matters: Uncovering implicit mechanisms in graph contrastive learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 28585--28610

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Guo, Y.; and Wei, Z. 2023. Graph neural networks with learnable and optimal polynomial bases. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 12077--12097. PMLR

    work page 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    He, M.; Wei, Z.; and Wen, J.-R. 2022. Convolutional Neural Networks on Graphs with Chebyshev Approximation, Revisited. In NeurIPS

    2022

  2. [10]

    He, M.; Wei, Z.; Xu, H.; et al. 2021. Bernnet: Learning arbitrary graph spectral filters via bernstein approximation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 14239--14251

    2021

  3. [11]

    Jiang, Y.; Huang, C.; and Huang, L. 2023. Adaptive graph contrastive learning for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 4252--4261

    2023

  4. [12]

    Jiang, Y.; Jin, S.; Jin, X.; Xiao, X.; Wu, W.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zeng, X.; Yang, G.; and Niu, Z. 2023. Pharmacophoric-constrained heterogeneous graph transformer model for molecular property prediction. Communications Chemistry, 6(1): 60

    2023

  5. [13]

    Karhadkar, K.; Banerjee, P.; and Montufar, G. 2023. FoSR: First-order spectral rewiring for addressing oversquashing in GNNs. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  6. [14]

    N.; and Welling, M

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

    2017

  7. [15]

    Lei, R.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Ding, B.; and Wei, Z. 2022. EvenNet: Ignoring Odd-Hop Neighbors Improves Robustness of Graph Neural Networks. In NeurIPS

    2022

  8. [16]

    Li, J.; Shomer, H.; Mao, H.; Zeng, S.; Ma, Y.; Shah, N.; Tang, J.; and Yin, D. 2024. Evaluating graph neural networks for link prediction: Current pitfalls and new benchmarking. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  9. [17]

    Lin, L.; Chen, J.; and Wang, H. 2023. Spectral Augmentation for Self-Supervised Learning on Graphs. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  10. [18]

    Liu, N.; Wang, X.; Bo, D.; Shi, C.; and Pei, J. 2022. Revisiting Graph Contrastive Learning from the Perspective of Graph Spectrum. In NeurIPS

    2022

  11. [19]

    Liu, R.; Yin, R.; Liu, Y.; and Wang, W. 2024. ASWT-SGNN: Adaptive Spectral Wavelet Transform-based Self-Supervised Graph Neural Network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 13990--13998

    2024

  12. [20]

    Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, D.; Lee, V.; and Pan, S. 2023. Beyond Smoothing: Unsupervised Graph Representation Learning with Edge Heterophily Discriminating. In AAAI

    2023

  13. [21]

    Lu, Y.; Gao, M.; Liu, H.; Liu, Z.; Yu, W.; Li, X.; and Jiao, P. 2023. Neighborhood overlap-aware heterogeneous hypergraph neural network for link prediction. Pattern Recognition, 144: 109818

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ma, Y.; Liu, X.; Shah, N.; and Tang, J. 2022. Is Homophily a Necessity for Graph Neural Networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  15. [23]

    Nt, H.; and Maehara, T. 2019. Revisiting graph neural networks: All we have is low-pass filters. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09550

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C.-C.; Lei, Y.; and Yang, B

    Pei, H.; Wei, B.; Chang, K. C.-C.; Lei, Y.; and Yang, B. 2020. Geom-GCN: Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  17. [25]

    Platonov, O.; Kuznedelev, D.; Diskin, M.; Babenko, A.; and Prokhorenkova, L. 2023. A critical look at evaluation of GNNs under heterophily: Are we really making progress? In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  18. [26]

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

    2021

  19. [27]

    Ruan, X.; Jiang, C.; Lin, P.; Lin, Y.; Liu, J.; Huang, S.; and Liu, X. 2023. MSGCL: inferring miRNA--disease associations based on multi-view self-supervised graph structure contrastive learning. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24(2): bbac623

    2023

  20. [28]

    G.; Azabou, M.; Dyer, E

    Thakoor, S.; Tallec, C.; Azar, M. G.; Azabou, M.; Dyer, E. L.; Munos, R.; Veli c kovi \'c , P.; and Valko, M. 2022. Large-Scale Representation Learning on Graphs via Bootstrapping. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  21. [29]

    L.; Li \` o , P.; Bengio, Y.; and Hjelm, R

    Veli c kovi \' c , P.; Fedus, W.; Hamilton, W. L.; Li \` o , P.; Bengio, Y.; and Hjelm, R. D. 2019. Deep Graph Infomax . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  22. [30]

    V.; and Ye, M

    Wan, G.; Tian, Y.; Huang, W.; Chawla, N. V.; and Ye, M. 2024. S3 GCL : Spectral, Swift, Spatial Graph Contrastive Learning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  23. [31]

    Wang, B.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, P.; Zhou, Z.; Bai, L.; and Wang, Y. 2023. Pattern expansion and consolidation on evolving graphs for continual traffic prediction. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2223--2232

    2023

  24. [32]

    Wang, X.; and Zhang, M. 2022. How powerful are spectral graph neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, 23341--23362. PMLR

    2022

  25. [33]

    Xiao, T.; Zhu, H.; Chen, Z.; and Wang, S. 2023. Simple and Asymmetric Graph Contrastive Learning without Augmentations. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  26. [34]

    Xu, B.; Shen, H.; Cao, Q.; Cen, K.; and Cheng, X. 2019. Graph convolutional networks using heat kernel for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'19, 1928–1934. AAAI Press. ISBN 9780999241141

    2019

  27. [35]

    F.; Han, J.; and Tong, H

    Xu, H.; Yan, Y.; Wang, D.; Xu, Z.; Zeng, Z.; Abdelzaher, T. F.; Han, J.; and Tong, H. 2024. SLOG : An Inductive Spectral Graph Neural Network Beyond Polynomial Filter. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  28. [36]

    Yang, Y.; Huang, C.; Xia, L.; and Huang, C. 2023. Knowledge Graph Self-Supervised Rationalization for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '23, 3046–3056. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machi...

    2023

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    You, Y.; Chen, T.; Shen, Y.; and Wang, Z. 2021. Graph contrastive learning automated. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 12121--12132. PMLR

    2021

  31. [39]

    You, Y.; Chen, T.; Sui, Y.; Chen, T.; Wang, Z.; and Shen, Y. 2020. Graph Contrastive Learning with Augmentations. In Larochelle, H.; Ranzato, M.; Hadsell, R.; Balcan, M. F.; and Lin, H., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, 5812--5823. Curran Ass...

    2020

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Song, Z.; Koniusz, P.; and King, I. 2023. Spectral feature augmentation for graph contrastive learning and beyond. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 11289--11297

    2023

  33. [41]

    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

  34. [42]

    Zhu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Yu, F.; Liu, Q.; Wu, S.; and Wang, L. 2020 b . Deep Graph Contrastive Representation Learning . In ICML Workshop on Graph Representation Learning and Beyond

    2020

  35. [43]

    , " * 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...

  36. [44]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

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