Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Instance-Prototype Affinity Learning for Non-Exemplar Continual Graph Learning

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read IPAL claims that prototype contrastive learning drifts less than prototype replay, and builds a non-exemplar continual graph learner on that finding.

desk verdict Solid empirical paper with a flawed theory appendix: IPAL works on the benchmarks, but Theorem 1 should be a conjecture, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10040 v1 pith:AG2JAH3O submitted 2025-05-15 cs.LG

Lei Song , Jiaxing Li , Shihan Guan , Youyong Kong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords non-exemplarcontinualgraphlearningclass-incrementalprototypereplayfeaturedriftcontrastiveneuralnetworksknowledgedistillationPageRankprototypes
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 proposes a new method, IPAL, for continual node classification on graphs without storing or replaying raw examples from earlier tasks. Its central claim is that Prototype Contrastive Learning (PCL) suffers less feature drift than the standard Prototype Replay used by prior non-exemplar approaches, and the authors give a theorem to that effect. On top of PCL, IPAL adds PageRank-weighted Gaussian prototypes, relational distillation between instances and prototypes, and a decision-boundary module that uses hard examples as extra negatives. Across four node-classification benchmarks, the paper reports that IPAL outperforms existing methods and achieves a better balance between plasticity and stability.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the PCL objective, a prototypical contrastive loss that treats each node embedding as a query, its own class prototype as the positive, and all other class prototypes as negatives. IPAL makes three modifications to it: TIGP replaces mean prototypes with PageRank-weighted Gaussian distributions, biasing class geometry toward influential nodes; IPAD distills the inner products between current-task instances and old-class prototypes, preserving relational structure rather than rigid feature distances; and DBP selects the top-entropy instances near class boundaries and adds them as extra negative pairs. Together these pieces carry the argument that old-class geometry can be protected without raw exemplars.

What would settle it

Compute the mean feature of each old class before and after training on a new task under PCL and under standard prototype replay; if PCL's mean shift is not consistently smaller across task transitions, the theorem on feature drift is not supported by the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that replacing the cross-entropy objective of prototype replay with a contrastive objective aligns current-task instances with their class prototypes and actively repels instances from other classes, so old feature distributions move less when the encoder is updated. Theorem 1 formalizes this: under Gaussian feature distributions, the KL divergence between previous-task feature distributions before and after an update is smaller for PCL than for Prototype Replay. IPAL operationalizes the result with Topology-Integrated Gaussian Prototypes (TIGP), which weight class means and covariances by PageRank; Instance-Prototype Affinity Distillation (IPAD), which regularizes instance-prototype relationship patterns instead of exact features; and Decision Boundary Perception (DBP), which adds high-entropy boundary instances as negative pairs. In the reported experiments, IPAL has the highest average accuracy on all four benchmarks, such as 83.07 percent on CS-CL versus 81.19 percent for the strongest rehearsal-based comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the contrastive objective stabilizes old-class feature means, an effect the paper asserts in its proof rather than derives from the loss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If PCL drifts less than Prototype Replay, non-exemplar continual graph learners can reduce their reliance on post-hoc drift-compensation machinery.
  • IPAL's benchmark results suggest that relational distillation plus contrastive prototypes can substitute for feature distillation, which the paper argues over-constrains plasticity.
  • Topology-weighted prototypes imply that node importance affects prototype quality, so uniform averaging of node features is suboptimal for graph continual learning.
  • Boundary-aware negative pairs imply that explicitly mining hard instances improves inter-class separation during incremental graph learning.
  • A better plasticity-stability trade-off means graph classifiers can be trained on sequentially arriving classes while keeping no raw data from past tasks.
  • This is an editorial inference: if the drift-reduction claim holds, the same contrastive-prototype mechanism may transfer to other exemplar-free continual learning settings, such as images or text, where stored prototypes are also affected by feature drift.
  • This is an editorial inference: a quantitative drift metric, measuring the mean shift of old-class features before and after each task, would make the paper's central premise directly testable; the paper currently supports it with a qualitative visualization.
  • This is an editorial inference: the PageRank weighting suggests a testable family of variants that replace PageRank with other centrality measures and compare plasticity, or that recompute prototype weights as the graph evolves.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes IPAL, a non-exemplar continual graph learning method built on prototype contrastive learning (PCL). The authors argue empirically and via a stated theorem (Theorem 1, Appendix A) that PCL induces less feature drift than conventional prototype replay (PR), and they introduce three components: Topology-Integrated Gaussian Prototypes (TIGP), which PageRank-weight node contributions when computing class prototypes; Instance-Prototype Affinity Distillation (IPAD), which regularizes instance–prototype affinity via Mixup-based synthetic features; and Decision Boundary Perception (DBP), which adds hard-example repulsion to the PCL objective. The method is evaluated on CS-CL, CoraFull-CL, Arxiv-CL, and Reddit-CL against regularization, rehearsal, and non-exemplar baselines, reporting improved average performance in Table 1, with ablations and parameter sensitivity studies in Tables 2 and Figure 6.

Significance. If the claims hold, IPAL is a competitive empirical contribution to non-exemplar continual graph learning, a setting where memory and privacy constraints rule out raw-example replay. The paper's strengths are the standard CGLB-style benchmark setup, the inclusion of several strong non-exemplar baselines (POLO, EFC), the clear ablation isolating TIGP, IPAD, and DBP, and the consistent average-performance gains in Table 1. However, the central scientific claim that PCL provably incurs less feature drift than PR is not supported by the proof in Appendix A; the key step is asserted rather than derived. Because the main text explicitly presents Theorem 1 as a rigorous proof that motivates the entire design, this gap is load-bearing and must be repaired, or the theoretical claim must be removed and reframed as an empirical observation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem 1 and Eq. (21)] Theorem 1 is not established by the proof given. The pivotal step is the sentence after Eq. (21): "Eq. 2 regularizes the negative sample gradients in Eq. 17 by minimizing F_θt(x_t)⊤·µ_m, encouraging ∆θ to drive F_θt(x_m) closer to F_θt−1(x_m)." Eq. (17) is a gradient with respect to the current-task feature f_θt = F_θt(x_t), whereas Eq. (21) is an expectation over previous-task samples (x_m, y_m) ∈ T_{0:t−1}, which are not available when training on T_t. No argument shows that optimizing the PCL objective on current-task samples contracts the previous-task prototype means or bounds ||µ′_m − µ_m||². The subsequent covariance claim that PR "allows Σ_m to expand uncontrollably" is qualitative and is not derived from the PR objective in Eq. (1). Consequently, the inequality D_KL(P^{t−1}∥P^t)_{PCL} < D_KL(P^{t−1}∥P^t)_{PR} does not follow from the equations presented. Because Section 1 presents this theorem as the rigorous justification for the PCL-based design, this gap needs to be repaired or the theorem must be removed and the motivation reframed as an empirical observation.
  2. [Section 5 / Figure 1] The empirical premise that "PCL exhibits less pronounced drift than conventional PR" is currently supported only by the qualitative visualization in Figure 1. No quantitative drift metric is reported for any dataset or task, such as the average prototype mean shift or an estimated KL divergence between the old and new feature distributions. Since Theorem 1 is the only formal support for this premise and that proof is incomplete, the paper should either report such a metric (e.g., on CS-CL and CoraFull-CL) or explicitly downgrade the claim to an observed trend that motivates the method rather than a demonstrated property of PCL.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, lines 9–10] As typeset, the drift compensation and the TIGP generation/allocation appear inside the "for epoch" loop, so they would be executed every epoch and the memory buffer would be rewritten multiple times; move them outside the epoch loop to match the post-task descriptions in Sections 4.1 and 4.4.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The notation "idx = arg max ... == y_m" is unclear: y_m is not defined for the prototype index m, and the comparison with the arg max result should be spelled out (e.g., by defining the prototype label and how the boolean mask is applied).
  3. [Section 5.1, Implementation Details] "PyTorch 3.10 framework" should read "PyTorch with Python 3.10" (or equivalent); PyTorch does not have a version 3.10.
  4. [Section 4.4, Eq. (11)] The text says β is "assigned an exceedingly small value" in light of Figure 1, but the experiments use β = 0.1; please clarify whether 0.1 is considered small in this context or whether the reported results use a different value.
  5. [Figure 3] The caption describes top/middle/bottom rows, but the figure contains multiple dataset columns; please annotate each subplot with its method and dataset, or arrange the panels by method, to remove ambiguity about which heatmap corresponds to which configuration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 1's proof assumes the conclusion: PCL is asserted to 'essentially regularize' the exact mean-shift quantity the theorem must bound, so the theoretical motivation is circular, while the empirical benchmarks remain independent.

  1. other [Appendix A, proof of Theorem 1 (text after Eq. 21 and after Eq. 23)]
    "Eq. 2 regularizes the negative sample gradients in Eq. 17 by minimizing Fθt(xt)⊤·µm, encouraging ∆θ to drive Fθt(xm) closer to Fθt−1(xm). Thus, LPCL essentially regularizes ∥µ′m−µm∥2 2, effectively alleviating feature shift. ... According to our preceding analysis, PCL encourages alignment between Fθt(xm) and Fθt−1(xm), whereas PR, lacking such a constraint, allows Σm to expand uncontrollably."

    Theorem 1 aims to prove DKL(Pt−1∥Pt)PCL < DKL(Pt−1∥Pt)PR, which the proof reduces to showing PCL yields smaller ∥µ′m−µm∥2 and tr(Σ′−1m Σm−I). The mean-shift step asserts, without derivation, that minimizing the negative term Fθt(xt)⊤·µm for current-task samples drives previous-task features Fθt(xm) toward Fθt−1(xm), then declares LPCL 'essentially regularizes' the exact norm ∥µ′m−µm∥22. Equation 21 is an expectation over previous-task samples (xm,ym), while Eq. 17's gradient is evaluated on current-task samples (xt,yt); no transfer or bound connects them. The covariance step explicitly invokes 'our preceding analysis', i.e., the same unproved alignment claim. The theorem's conclusion is therefore assumed rather than derived from the PCL objective.

full rationale

The benchmark comparison and ablations are self-contained: Table 1 reports standard train/test accuracy on held-out nodes, γ is tuned by grid search, and ablation variants are trained and evaluated under the same protocol, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The circularity is confined to the theoretical motivation. The proof of Theorem 1 (Appendix A) needs to show PCL produces smaller mean shift and covariance expansion than PR; instead, after writing Eq. 21 it asserts that PCL 'essentially regularizes ∥µ′m−µm∥22', which is exactly the target inequality, and the covariance argument simply repeats 'our preceding analysis'. This is a circular step because the property to be proven is inserted as an interpretation of Eq. 2 without a mathematical derivation. The Figure 1 support is a visualization rather than a quantitative drift metric, which compounds the gap but is not itself circular. This flaw does not falsify the empirical SOTA claim, which stands on independent evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no physical or metaphysical entities; TIGP, IPAD, and DBP are method components, not postulated quantities with independent falsifiable handles, so the invented-entities list is empty. Free parameters are mostly standard hyperparameters, but several are tuned per dataset or chosen by hand and are load-bearing for the reported trade-off.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma = 0.6 to 0.7 on small datasets, higher on larger (grid search over 0.1-1.0)
    Weights IPAD loss relative to PCL; tuned per dataset on validation sets (Section 5.4, Fig. 6).
  • beta = 0.1
    Drift compensation intensity for updating stored prototypes (Eq. 11); hand-set in Section 5.1.
  • K = 10
    Number of hard examples per class selected by DBP; hand-set in Section 5.1.
  • S_t subset size = 100
    Number of current-task samples used for IPAD mixup; hand-set in Section 5.1.
  • Mixup lambda distribution = Beta(9,21), lambda in [0,0.4]
    Controls interpolation strength in Eq. 6; chosen by hand to bias towards small lambda.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Feature distributions for each class and the drifted distributions are Gaussian (N(µ,Σ))
    Used to define prototypes in Eq. 4 and is the premise of Theorem 1 in Appendix A; real GNN embeddings are not guaranteed Gaussian.
  • ad hoc to paper PCL's negative-sample gradient keeps prior prototype means close to their old values
    Asserted around Eq. 21 in Appendix A without proof; it is the main step that would establish Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption PageRank value reflects node importance for prototype computation
    Eqs. 3-4 reweight node contributions by PageRank; no evidence that PageRank aligns with feature representativeness.
  • domain assumption Task graph can be decomposed into disjoint subgraphs by class labels
    Problem formulation in Section 3 and dataset splits in Appendix B.1 assume disjoint subgraphs; the paper's Limitation section acknowledges this may not generalize to heterogeneous domains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instance-Prototype Affinity Learning for Non-Exemplar Continual Graph Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AG2JAH3O

@misc{pith2026250510040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instance-Prototype Affinity Learning for Non-Exemplar Continual Graph Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AG2JAH3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10040}
}
read the original abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNN) endure catastrophic forgetting, undermining their capacity to preserve previously acquired knowledge amid the assimilation of novel information. Rehearsal-based techniques revisit historical examples, adopted as a principal strategy to alleviate this phenomenon. However, memory explosion and privacy infringements impose significant constraints on their utility. Non-Exemplar methods circumvent the prior issues through Prototype Replay (PR), yet feature drift presents new challenges. In this paper, our empirical findings reveal that Prototype Contrastive Learning (PCL) exhibits less pronounced drift than conventional PR. Drawing upon PCL, we propose Instance-Prototype Affinity Learning (IPAL), a novel paradigm for Non-Exemplar Continual Graph Learning (NECGL). Exploiting graph structural information, we formulate Topology-Integrated Gaussian Prototypes (TIGP), guiding feature distributions towards high-impact nodes to augment the model's capacity for assimilating new knowledge. Instance-Prototype Affinity Distillation (IPAD) safeguards task memory by regularizing discontinuities in class relationships. Moreover, we embed a Decision Boundary Perception (DBP) mechanism within PCL, fostering greater inter-class discriminability. Evaluations on four node classification benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods, achieving a better trade-off between plasticity and stability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of feature drift for conventional Pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall pipeline of the proposed IPAL framework. Upon the culmination of task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance heatmaps on three datasets are shown. Top row: Mean-based prototypes for PCL; Middle row: Feature distillation to mitigate feature drift; Bottom row: Our proposed IPAL, which integrates TIGP and IPAD to better balance the trade-off between plasticity and stability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Learning dynamics over the task sequences on CS-CL, CoraFull-CL, Arxiv-CL, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of various γ settings on CS-CL, CoraFull￾CL, and Arxiv-CL, with AP re￾ported. overall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget

    Rahaf Aljundi, Francesca Babiloni, Mohamed Elhoseiny, Marcus Rohrbach, and Tinne Tuyte- laars. Memory aware synapses: Learning what (not) to forget. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 139–154, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Learning fast, learning slow: A general contin- ual learning method based on complementary learning system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12604, 2022

    Elahe Arani, Fahad Sarfraz, and Bahram Zonooz. Learning fast, learning slow: A general contin- ual learning method based on complementary learning system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.12604, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Mm-gnn: Mix-moment graph neural network towards modeling neighborhood feature distribution

    Wendong Bi, Lun Du, Qiang Fu, Yanlin Wang, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. Mm-gnn: Mix-moment graph neural network towards modeling neighborhood feature distribution. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 132–140, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Efficient statistical sampling adaptation for exemplar-free class incremental learning.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    De Cheng, Yuxin Zhao, Nannan Wang, Guozhang Li, Dingwen Zhang, and Xinbo Gao. Efficient statistical sampling adaptation for exemplar-free class incremental learning.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Protognn: Prototype-assisted message passing framework for non-homophilous graphs

    Yanfei Dong, Mohammed Haroon Dupty, Lambert Deng, Yong Liang Goh, and Wee Sun Lee. Protognn: Prototype-assisted message passing framework for non-homophilous graphs. 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Exemplar-free continual representation learning via learnable drift compensation

    Alex Gomez-Villa, Dipam Goswami, Kai Wang, Andrew D Bagdanov, Bartlomiej Twardowski, and Joost van de Weijer. Exemplar-free continual representation learning via learnable drift compensation. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 473–490. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Contrastive multi-view representation learning on graphs

    Kaveh Hassani and Amir Hosein Khasahmadi. Contrastive multi-view representation learning on graphs. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 4116–4126. PMLR, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs

    Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovec. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:22118–22133, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 114(13):3521–3526, 2017

    James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, Joel Veness, Guillaume Desjardins, Andrei A Rusu, Kieran Milan, John Quan, Tiago Ramalho, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwinska, et al. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networks.Proceedings of the national academy of scienc...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Fcs: Feature calibration and separation for non- exemplar class incremental learning

    Qiwei Li, Yuxin Peng, and Jiahuan Zhou. Fcs: Feature calibration and separation for non- exemplar class incremental learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 28495–28504, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Inductive graph few-shot class incremental learning

    Yayong Li, Peyman Moghadam, Can Peng, Nan Ye, and Piotr Koniusz. Inductive graph few-shot class incremental learning. InProceedings of the Eighteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 466–474, 2025. 10

    2025

  7. [15]

    Learning without forgetting.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(12):2935–2947, 2017

    Zhizhong Li and Derek Hoiem. Learning without forgetting.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(12):2935–2947, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in graph neural networks

    Huihui Liu, Yiding Yang, and Xinchao Wang. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in graph neural networks. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 8653–8661, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Cat: Balanced continual graph learning with graph condensation

    Yilun Liu, Ruihong Qiu, and Zi Huang. Cat: Balanced continual graph learning with graph condensation. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 1157–

  10. [18]

    Gradient episodic memory for continual learning

    David Lopez-Paz and Marc’Aurelio Ranzato. Gradient episodic memory for continual learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Elastic feature consolidation for cold start exemplar-free incremental learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03917, 2024

    Simone Magistri, Tomaso Trinci, Albin Soutif-Cormerais, Joost van de Weijer, and Andrew D Bagdanov. Elastic feature consolidation for cold start exemplar-free incremental learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03917, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Automating the construction of internet portals with machine learning.Information Retrieval, 3:127–163, 2000

    Andrew Kachites McCallum, Kamal Nigam, Jason Rennie, and Kristie Seymore. Automating the construction of internet portals with machine learning.Information Retrieval, 3:127–163, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    Distributed repre- sentations of words and phrases and their compositionality.Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed repre- sentations of words and phrases and their compositionality.Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Replay-and-forget-free graph class-incremental learning: A task profiling and prompting approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10341, 2024

    Chaoxi Niu, Guansong Pang, Ling Chen, and Bing Liu. Replay-and-forget-free graph class-incremental learning: A task profiling and prompting approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10341, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web

    Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and Terry Winograd. The pagerank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web. Technical report, Stanford infolab, 1999

    1999

  16. [24]

    Fetril: Feature translation for exemplar-free class-incremental learning

    Grégoire Petit, Adrian Popescu, Hugo Schindler, David Picard, and Bertrand Delezoide. Fetril: Feature translation for exemplar-free class-incremental learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 3911–3920, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Incremental graph classification by class prototype construction and augmentation

    Yixin Ren, Li Ke, Dong Li, Hui Xue, Zhao Li, and Shuigeng Zhou. Incremental graph classification by class prototype construction and augmentation. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 2136–2145, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Graph neural networks: Architectures, stability, and transferability.Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5):660–682, 2021

    Luana Ruiz, Fernando Gama, and Alejandro Ribeiro. Graph neural networks: Architectures, stability, and transferability.Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5):660–682, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    The lattice theory of information.Transactions of the IRE professional Group on Information Theory, 1(1):105–107, 1953

    Claude Shannon. The lattice theory of information.Transactions of the IRE professional Group on Information Theory, 1(1):105–107, 1953

    1953

  20. [28]

    A mathematical theory of communication.The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379–423, 1948

    Claude E Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication.The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379–423, 1948

    1948

  21. [29]

    Pitfalls of graph neural network evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05868, 2018

    Oleksandr Shchur, Maximilian Mumme, Aleksandar Bojchevski, and Stephan Günnemann. Pitfalls of graph neural network evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05868, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Prototypical networks for few-shot learning

    Jake Snell, Kevin Swersky, and Richard Zemel. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Graph attention networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Non-exemplar class- incremental learning via adaptive old class reconstruction

    Shaokun Wang, Weiwei Shi, Yuhang He, Yifan Yu, and Yihong Gong. Non-exemplar class- incremental learning via adaptive old class reconstruction. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 4524–4534, 2023. 11

    2023

  25. [33]

    Mixup for node and graph classification

    Yiwei Wang, Wei Wang, Yuxuan Liang, Yujun Cai, and Bryan Hooi. Mixup for node and graph classification. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 3663–3674, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Simplifying graph convolutional networks

    Felix Wu, Amauri Souza, Tianyi Zhang, Christopher Fifty, Tao Yu, and Kilian Weinberger. Simplifying graph convolutional networks. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 6861–6871. Pmlr, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Infogcl: Information-aware graph contrastive learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:30414–30425, 2021

    Dongkuan Xu, Wei Cheng, Dongsheng Luo, Haifeng Chen, and Xiang Zhang. Infogcl: Information-aware graph contrastive learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:30414–30425, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    How powerful are graph neural networks?arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826, 2018

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks?arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Semantic drift compensation for class-incremental learning

    Lu Yu, Bartlomiej Twardowski, Xialei Liu, Luis Herranz, Kai Wang, Yongmei Cheng, Shangling Jui, and Joost van de Weijer. Semantic drift compensation for class-incremental learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6982...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Continual learning through synaptic intelligence

    Friedemann Zenke, Ben Poole, and Surya Ganguli. Continual learning through synaptic intelligence. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 3987–3995. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Fine-grained knowledge selection and restoration for non-exemplar class incremental learning

    Jiang-Tian Zhai, Xialei Liu, Lu Yu, and Ming-Ming Cheng. Fine-grained knowledge selection and restoration for non-exemplar class incremental learning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 6971–6978, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412, 2017

    Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. mixup: Beyond empirical risk minimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09412, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Continual learning on dynamic graphs via parameter isolation

    Peiyan Zhang, Yuchen Yan, Chaozhuo Li, Senzhang Wang, Xing Xie, Guojie Song, and Sunghun Kim. Continual learning on dynamic graphs via parameter isolation. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages ...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Cglb: Benchmark tasks for continual graph learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:13006–13021, 2022

    Xikun Zhang, Dongjin Song, and Dacheng Tao. Cglb: Benchmark tasks for continual graph learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:13006–13021, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Sparsified subgraph memory for continual graph representation learning

    Xikun Zhang, Dongjin Song, and Dacheng Tao. Sparsified subgraph memory for continual graph representation learning. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 1335–1340. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in graph neural networks with experience replay

    Fan Zhou and Chengtai Cao. Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in graph neural networks with experience replay. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 4714–4722, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Prototype augmentation and self-supervision for incremental learning

    Fei Zhu, Xu-Yao Zhang, Chuang Wang, Fei Yin, and Cheng-Lin Liu. Prototype augmentation and self-supervision for incremental learning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5871–5880, 2021. A Theoretical Analysis on Feature D...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.