From Moments to Models: Graphon-Mixture Learning for Mixup and Contrastive Learning

Ali Azizpour; Reza Ramezanpour; Santiago Segarra

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 18 references

From Moments to Models: Graphon-Mixture Learning for Mixup and Contrastive Learning

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A moment-based clustering of graphs into latent graphon mixtures improves graph mixup and contrastive learning, with a claimed tighter motif-density concentration bound.

desk verdict Mixture-of-graphons framing is genuinely new and the empirical work is solid, but the headline theorem has a definition mismatch and relies on an unproved lemma, so the core theory is not established as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.03690 v4 pith:HFAOGF2G submitted 2025-10-04 cs.LG stat.ML

Ali Azizpour , Reza Ramezanpour , Santiago Segarra This is my paper

classification cs.LGstat.ML

keywords graphlearningdatasetsmodelscontrastivegraphonsgraphsmixture

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

Graphons are continuous functions that generate random graphs: each node gets a random number in [0,1], and each pair of nodes is connected with a probability given by the function. A graph dataset can contain graphs produced by several different graphons. This paper's first step is to describe each graph by the densities of small patterns (motifs with up to 4 nodes). It runs k-means on those 9 numbers, hoping each cluster corresponds to one graphon. A graphon is then estimated for each cluster using a previous method called SIGL.

With clusters in hand, the paper builds two tools. For supervised mixup (GMAM), it interpolates between graphons from different classes and generates new graphs from the mixed probability function. For self-supervised contrastive learning (MGCL), it resamples a fraction of edges using the cluster's graphon to create an augmented view, and it modifies the contrastive loss so that negative samples only come from other clusters, avoiding false negatives.

The paper's theory claims a new bound: if two graphons are close in cut distance, the motif densities of graphs sampled from them are close with high probability, with a sampling error that improves on older bounds. The proof, however, leaves the key edge-noise lemma unproved, and the theorem statement defines m in a way that contradicts the proof. The empirical sections also contain inconsistent dataset counts. The main ideas are plausible but need a corrected proof before the theoretical claim can be accepted.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's headline assertion is Theorem 1: for two n-vertex graphs G1,G2 sampled from graphons W1,W2 with d_cut(W1,W2)≤ε and any motif F, |t(F,G1)−t(F,G2)| ≤ e(F)ε + 2( sqrt(1/(2m)log(4/η)) + e(F)/sqrt(n(n−1)) sqrt(2log(4/η)) ) with probability ≥1−2η (Eq. 10). On this basis, the authors claim that moment-vector clustering 'justifies the use of motif-based embeddings for graph clustering' and enables state-of-the-art mixup and contrastive learning.

Load-bearing premise

The bound rests on Lemma 2 (Appendix B.1), which asserts the edge-noise concentration Pr(|t(F,G)−bt(F;X)|≥δ_e | X) ≤ 2 exp(−n(n−1)δ_e^2/(2e(F)^2)) without proof. A second issue: Theorem 1 defines m as the binomial coefficient C(n,k), while the proof's Lemma 1 uses m=floor(n/k); the printed inequality is therefore not the one derived. If the lemma is wrong or the m definition stands, the claimed O(√k) improvement over the classical bound is unsupported.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The best thing in this paper is the cluster-restricted InfoNCE objective (MGCL), which only pulls against graphs from different estimated graphons. That is a real fix for the false-negative problem, and the appendix suggests it helps. GMAM, the graphon-mixture-aware mixup, is a natural extension of G-Mixup to multiple graphons per class, and the synthetic clustering experiment shows moment vectors cleanly separate graphons. The experiments are extensive, and the reported gains over strong baselines like GraphCL and G-Mixup are plausible.

The soft spots are real. Theorem 1 defines m as the binomial coefficient C(n,k) in Eq. (10), but the proof in Appendix B.1 uses Lemma 1 with m = floor(n/k). Those are different quantities. The claimed O(√k) improvement over the classical O(k) bound only makes sense with m ≈ n/k, so the printed theorem is not the one proved. That is likely a typo, but it has to be fixed. More seriously, Lemma 2 — the edge-noise concentration — is stated without proof. That is load-bearing; without it, the sampling-error bound is only half justified. The lemma is probably true (a McDiarmid argument would do), but as written the central theoretical claim is unsupported.

There are also minor reporting inconsistencies: the abstract says GMAM is SOTA on 6 of 7 datasets, the text says five of eight benchmarks (Table 2 has seven), and the abstract says MGCL is evaluated on seven datasets while Table 3 has eight. Cleanup needed.

The framework is plausible and likely salvageable. I would send this to peer review, with the expectation that a referee requires a corrected theorem statement, a proof of Lemma 2, and consistent dataset counts before acceptance. The audience is graph representation learning researchers, particularly those working on augmentation or contrastive learning. I would cite it only after the theory is fixed.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a graphon-mixture framework for graph representation learning. The method clusters graphs by their empirical motif-density (moment) vectors, estimates a graphon for each cluster using SIGL, and uses the estimated mixture in two downstream tasks: graphon-mixture-aware mixup (GMAM) and model-aware graph contrastive learning (MGCL). The central theoretical claim, Theorem 1, bounds the difference between empirical motif densities of two n-vertex graphs sampled from graphons with cut distance at most ε by e(F)ε plus a sampling-error term, with a claimed O(√k) improvement over classical bounds. Experiments on synthetic data show that moment-based clustering separates graphs from different graphons, and experiments on TU datasets report strong performance for GMAM and MGCL, including the best average rank among compared contrastive methods.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely problem: heterogeneous graph datasets are often mixtures of generative models, and existing methods such as G-Mixup assume a single graphon per class. The proposed pipeline is a coherent synthesis of moment-based clustering, graphon estimation, mixup, and contrastive learning. The strongest contributions are the detailed experimental evaluation (including ablations on motif count, cluster count, and false-negative behavior), the clear algorithmic description, and the identification of a potential new concentration bound for motif densities. If Theorem 1 is correctly stated and proved, it would provide a principled justification for moment-based graph clustering and would be a useful result in the graphon-learning literature. However, as printed, the theorem contains a definition/proof mismatch and relies on an unproved lemma, so the central mathematical guarantee is not yet established. The empirical results are extensive and plausible, but several performance gaps are within one standard deviation, so the SOTA claims should be tempered.

major comments (2)

[Theorem 1 (Section 3.1, Eq. (10)) and Lemma 1 (Appendix B.1)] The theorem statement defines m = C(n,k) in Eq. (10), while the proof of Lemma 1 in Appendix B.1 uses m = floor(n/k). The vertex-noise bound Pr(|bt(F;X)-t(F,W)| >= δ_v) <= 2 exp(-2m δ_v^2) is then inverted with δ_v = sqrt(1/(2m) log(4/η)) using the latter m. With m = C(n,k), the bound would be exponentially small in a quantity much larger than n, which cannot follow from a function of n latent variables; Lemma 1 as stated would be implausible. The asymptotic comparison in B.2.2 explicitly approximates m ≈ n/k, confirming the intended definition. Thus the printed inequality is not the theorem proved, and the claimed O(√k) improvement over the classical bound is unsupported as written. This appears fixable by aligning Eq. (10) with the proof (m = floor(n/k)), but it is a load-bearing correction.
[Appendix B.1, Lemma 2] The edge-noise bound Pr(|t(F,G)-bt(F;X)| >= δ_e | X) <= 2 exp(- n(n-1) δ_e^2 / (2 e(F)^2)) is stated without proof. This lemma is essential: the sampling-error term in Eq. (10) is the sum δ_v + δ_e, so the theorem's guarantee depends directly on this concentration inequality. The bound is plausible (e.g., by a McDiarmid or Azuma-style argument on edge flips), but the exact constant in the exponent cannot be verified from the manuscript. A complete proof should be supplied, or the statement should be derived explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Notation, Eq. (9) vs Eq. (10)] The symbol m is overloaded: Eq. (9) uses m for the number of motifs in the family F, while Eq. (10) redefines m as C(n,k). Use distinct symbols (e.g., m_F and m_sample) to avoid ambiguity.
[Section 3.1, paragraph after Theorem 1] The text says that by applying a union bound across all motifs in F, the principle extends to the full moment vector. This is true, but the probability bound would acquire a factor of |F|; the explicit statement is missing. Please state the resulting high-probability guarantee for the vector case.
[Section 4.2, text after Table 2] The prose states that GMAM achieves the highest accuracy on 'five of eight benchmarks,' but Table 2 contains seven datasets and GMAM is best on six (and second on one), consistent with the abstract's '6 out of 7.' The count should be corrected.
[Tables 2 and 3] Several reported improvements are within one standard deviation of the closest baseline (e.g., IMDB-B, IMDB-M, REDD-M12 in Table 2; NCI1 and PROTEINS in Table 3). The 'state-of-the-art' wording should be softened or supplemented with significance tests or multiple-seed reporting over the full deviation.
[Appendix F, TFR metric] The TFR increase is presented as evidence that clustering reduces false negatives. Since MGCL deliberately removes same-cluster negatives, the mechanism is direct; it would be helpful to report the p-values or confidence intervals for the TFR differences, and to state explicitly that the increase implies clusters align with class labels.

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

The empirical pipeline adds two tuned hyperparameters (K, L) and depends on the strong assumption that real datasets are finite graphon mixtures separable by 9 motif densities. The theoretical contribution is independent of downstream fitting but is not fully proven.

free parameters (4)

Number of clusters K = K = log T
Chosen to match dataset size; ablation (Appendix F.2, Fig. 5) shows different K gives better accuracy on some datasets, so it is an unvalidated hyperparameter.
Per-cluster refinement size L = unspecified
Algorithm 1 selects the L graphs closest to each centroid for graphon estimation, but no concrete value is given in the methods or experiments.
Mixup coefficient λ = Uniform(0, 0.2)
Sampled per generated graph in GMAM; controls the strength of interpolation between graphons.
Edge resampling ratio r = 20%
Fraction of node pairs resampled from the cluster graphon in MGCL; set for fairness with GraphCL.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Each observed graph is sampled from exactly one of K unknown graphons (finite mixture model).
Stated in Section 3.1: 'We assume that each observed graph G_t in the dataset is sampled from one of these graphons, though the assignment is unknown.'
domain assumption The 9-dimensional vector of connected motif densities up to 4 nodes separates distinct graphons in real-world datasets.
Basis for clustering; ablation (Appendix F.1) shows saturation after 9 motifs, but no identifiability guarantee is given.
standard math Hoeffding/McDiarmid concentration and the counting lemma (Lovász 2012, Thm 10.23) are valid.
Used in Appendix B to prove Theorem 1; standard results, but Lemma 2 remains unproved.
domain assumption SIGL accurately estimates graphons and latent node positions from cluster graphs.
MGCL resampling (Eq. 15) queries W_hat(η_i,η_j) using SIGL's η estimates; no error analysis for this approximation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Moments to Models: Graphon-Mixture Learning for Mixup and Contrastive Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFAOGF2G

@misc{pith2026251003690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Moments to Models: Graphon-Mixture Learning for Mixup and Contrastive Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFAOGF2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03690}
}

read the original abstract

Real-world graph datasets often arise from mixtures of populations, where graphs are generated by multiple distinct underlying distributions. In this work, we propose a unified framework that explicitly models graph data as a mixture of probabilistic graph generative models represented by graphons. To characterize and estimate these graphons, we leverage graph moments (motif densities) to cluster graphs generated from the same underlying model. We establish a novel theoretical guarantee, deriving a tighter bound showing that graphs sampled from structurally similar graphons exhibit similar motif densities with high probability. This result enables principled estimation of graphon mixture components. We show how incorporating estimated graphon mixture components enhances two widely used downstream paradigms: graph data augmentation via mixup and graph contrastive learning. By conditioning these methods on the underlying generative models, we develop graphon-mixture-aware mixup (GMAM) and model-aware graph contrastive learning (MGCL). Extensive experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate strong empirical performance. In supervised learning, GMAM outperforms existing augmentation strategies, achieving new state-of-the-art accuracy on 6 out of 7 datasets. In unsupervised learning, MGCL performs competitively across seven benchmark datasets and achieves the lowest average rank overall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03690 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of the proposed framework. (a) Graphon mixture estimation via motif moment vectors, (b) Graphon mixture–aware mixup for data augmentation, (c) Model-aware GCL leveraging graphon-informed augmentations and model-aware contrastive loss. 3 METHODS We first present our unified framework for estimating the multiple underlying data distributions of graphs as a graphon mixture in Section 3.1. We then introduce nov… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** t-SNE embedding of graphs. Left: Varying size, n ∼ U[75, 300]. Right: Fixed size, n = 200. Each color represents different graphon. The proof is provided in Appendix C. This lower bound shows that by minimizing our loss function, each graph representation zt is contrasted against the centroid of unrelated models (smaller values for sim(zt, z¯ (¬Ct) )), rather than against the centroid of the entire dataset. Moreove… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of the total error bounds (2δs) for the classical (solid blue) and novel (dashed orange) approaches. The novel bound is consistently tighter, with the gap widening for motifs with more vertices (k), confirming its superior O( √ k) scaling. Our proposed cluster-restricted loss is defined as ℓcluster(t) = − log exp(θ(zt, z˜t)) P k∈Net exp(˜sk) . (19) Using the natural logarithm and separating the positive-p… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Effect of clustering on TFR across different datasets. • Moment Embedding (Ours): This is our proposed method, where each graph is represented by a 9-dimensional vector of its empirical motif densities for all connected motifs up to 4 nodes. • Graph Convolutional Netw…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Effect of the number of clusters on MGCL performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Cluster-specific estimated graphons in the COLLAB and IMDB-BINARY dataset, revealing diverse structures. Furthermore, when estimating models within each class for mixup applications, we observe diverse graphons both within and across classes, as illustrated in [PITH_F…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Cluster-specific estimated graphons in the COLLAB and IMDB-BINARY dataset within each class, revealing diverse structures. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

[1]

Output:Augmented set eD={(G (m) λ ,y (m) λ )}M m=1 of sizeM=⌈rT⌉

runper class; mixing coefficient distributionλ∼Uniform(0,0.2); target node countn; augmentation ratior∈(0,1]. Output:Augmented set eD={(G (m) λ ,y (m) λ )}M m=1 of sizeM=⌈rT⌉. 1Partition data by class:D i ={G t |y t =i}fori= 1, . . . , C. 2fori= 1toCdo 3({ ˆWi,1, . . . ,ˆWi,Ki }, πi)←Φ(D i). 4M← ⌈rT⌉, eD ←∅. 5form= 1toMdo 6Sample distinct classesi̸=j; sam...

2014
[2]

E EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

the estimation of the latent variables given an input graphs, i.e., an inverse mappingW −1 :A→η. E EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS. E.1 GROUND TRUTH GRAPHONS In Table 4, we provide the mathematical definition of the graphon used in Section 4 for the synthetic experiments. Table 4: Ground truth graphons. ω(x, y) 0xy 1exp(−(x 0.7 +y 0.7)) 2 1 4 (x2 +y 2 + √x+ √y) 3 1 ...

2015
[8]

Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10903,

Yu Rong, Wenbing Huang, Tingyang Xu, and Junzhou Huang. Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10903,

arXiv 1907
[11]

Model-agnostic augmentation for accurate graph classifi- cation

Jaemin Yoo, Sooyeon Shim, and U Kang. Model-agnostic augmentation for accurate graph classifi- cation. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pp. 1281–1291,

2022
[16]

Table 5: Benchmark datasets statistics

used in our real-world experiments. Table 5: Benchmark datasets statistics. Biochemical Molecules Social Networks Statistic NCI1 PROTEINS DD MUTAG AIDS COLLAB RDT-B RDT-M5K IMDB-B #Graphs 4,110 1,113 1,178 188 2,000 5,000 2,000 4,999 1,000 Avg. #Nodes29.87 39.06 284.32 17.93 15.69 74.5 429.6 508.8 19.8 Avg. #Edges 32.30 72.82 715.66 19.79 16.20 2457.78 49...

2019
[17]

• GraphCL You et al

that maximizes mutual information between graph-level and substructure representations at multiple scales. • GraphCL You et al. (2020): Learns representations via predefined augmentations such as edge perturbation, node dropping, and attribute masking. • MVGRL Hassani & Khasahmadi (2020): Performs contrastive learning between structural views, e.g., adjac...

2020
[23]

D GRAPHON ESTIMATION Here we expalin the details of SIGL

As a result, as discussed in Section 3.3 and shown by the above proofs together with Proposition 2, minimizing our refined loss function pushes each graph away from the centroid of graphs generated by other models, whereas the standard InfoNCE loss uses all graphs and pushes it away from the centroid of the entire dataset. D GRAPHON ESTIMATION Here we exp...

2011
[32]

22 Preprint. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TFR (TN/FN) NCI1 PROTEINS DD MUTAG COLLAB RDT-B RDT-M5K IMDB-B ↑4.0% ↑6.5% ↑11.4% ↑14.7% ↑23.6% ↑105.2% ↑27.7% ↑2.0% TFR comparison across datasets Baseline MGCL Figure 4:Effect of clustering on TFR across different datasets. •Moment Embedding (Ours):This is our proposed method, where each graph is repre- sented by a 9-dimension...

2016

Show all 18 references

[128]

The best test epoch is selected based on validation performance, and test accuracy is reported over eight runs with the sameseedused in Han et al

The dataset is split into training, validation, and test sets in a 7:1:2 ratio. The best test epoch is selected based on validation performance, and test accuracy is reported over eight runs with the sameseedused in Han et al. (2022). We generate 20% more graphs for training. ...

2022
[2001]

Fully distributed online training of graph neural networks in networked systems

Rostyslav Olshevskyi, Zhongyuan Zhao, Kevin Chan, Gunjan Verma, Ananthram Swami, and San- tiago Segarra. Fully distributed online training of graph neural networks in networked systems. In 2025 IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning for Communication and Networking ...

2025
[2011]

Kriege, Franka Bause, Kristian Kersting, Petra Mutzel, and Marion Neumann

Christopher Morris, Nils M. Kriege, Franka Bause, Kristian Kersting, Petra Mutzel, and Marion Neumann. Tudataset: A collection of benchmark datasets for learning with graphs. InICML 2020 Workshop on Graph Representation Learning and Beyond (GRL+ 2020),

2020
[2014]

A few moments please: Scalable graphon learning via moment matching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04206,

Reza Ramezanpour, Victor M Tenorio, Antonio G Marques, Ashutosh Sabharwal, and Santiago Segarra. A few moments please: Scalable graphon learning via moment matching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04206,

arXiv
[2015]

Thomas Kipf and Max Welling

10 Preprint. Thomas Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. ArXiv, abs/1609.02907,

arXiv
[2019]

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, WWW ’21, pp. 3663–3674, New York, NY , USA,

2021
[2020]

graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05005,

Annamalai Narayanan, Mahinthan Chandramohan, Rajasekar Venkatesan, Lihui Chen, Yang Liu, and Shantanu Jaiswal. graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05005,

arXiv
[2021]

ISBN 9781450383127

Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450383127. Jun Xia, Lirong Wu, Jintao Chen, Bozhen Hu, and Stan Z Li. Simgrace: A simple framework for graph contrastive learning without data augmentation. InProceedings of the ACM web conference 2022, pp. 1070–1079,

2022
[2022]

Graphmad: Graph mixup for data augmentation using data- driven convex clustering

Madeline Navarro and Santiago Segarra. Graphmad: Graph mixup for data augmentation using data- driven convex clustering. InICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp. 1–5,

2023
[2025]

Representation learning with contrastive predic- tive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748,

Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predic- tive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Output:Augmented set eD={(G (m) λ ,y (m) λ )}M m=1 of sizeM=⌈rT⌉

runper class; mixing coefficient distributionλ∼Uniform(0,0.2); target node countn; augmentation ratior∈(0,1]. Output:Augmented set eD={(G (m) λ ,y (m) λ )}M m=1 of sizeM=⌈rT⌉. 1Partition data by class:D i ={G t |y t =i}fori= 1, . . . , C. 2fori= 1toCdo 3({ ˆWi,1, . . . ,ˆWi,Ki }, πi)←Φ(D i). 4M← ⌈rT⌉, eD ←∅. 5form= 1toMdo 6Sample distinct classesi̸=j; sam...

2014

[2] [2]

E EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

the estimation of the latent variables given an input graphs, i.e., an inverse mappingW −1 :A→η. E EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS. E.1 GROUND TRUTH GRAPHONS In Table 4, we provide the mathematical definition of the graphon used in Section 4 for the synthetic experiments. Table 4: Ground truth graphons. ω(x, y) 0xy 1exp(−(x 0.7 +y 0.7)) 2 1 4 (x2 +y 2 + √x+ √y) 3 1 ...

2015

[3] [8]

Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10903,

Yu Rong, Wenbing Huang, Tingyang Xu, and Junzhou Huang. Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10903,

arXiv 1907

[4] [11]

Model-agnostic augmentation for accurate graph classifi- cation

Jaemin Yoo, Sooyeon Shim, and U Kang. Model-agnostic augmentation for accurate graph classifi- cation. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pp. 1281–1291,

2022

[5] [16]

Table 5: Benchmark datasets statistics

used in our real-world experiments. Table 5: Benchmark datasets statistics. Biochemical Molecules Social Networks Statistic NCI1 PROTEINS DD MUTAG AIDS COLLAB RDT-B RDT-M5K IMDB-B #Graphs 4,110 1,113 1,178 188 2,000 5,000 2,000 4,999 1,000 Avg. #Nodes29.87 39.06 284.32 17.93 15.69 74.5 429.6 508.8 19.8 Avg. #Edges 32.30 72.82 715.66 19.79 16.20 2457.78 49...

2019

[6] [17]

• GraphCL You et al

that maximizes mutual information between graph-level and substructure representations at multiple scales. • GraphCL You et al. (2020): Learns representations via predefined augmentations such as edge perturbation, node dropping, and attribute masking. • MVGRL Hassani & Khasahmadi (2020): Performs contrastive learning between structural views, e.g., adjac...

2020

[7] [23]

D GRAPHON ESTIMATION Here we expalin the details of SIGL

As a result, as discussed in Section 3.3 and shown by the above proofs together with Proposition 2, minimizing our refined loss function pushes each graph away from the centroid of graphs generated by other models, whereas the standard InfoNCE loss uses all graphs and pushes it away from the centroid of the entire dataset. D GRAPHON ESTIMATION Here we exp...

2011

[8] [32]

22 Preprint. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TFR (TN/FN) NCI1 PROTEINS DD MUTAG COLLAB RDT-B RDT-M5K IMDB-B ↑4.0% ↑6.5% ↑11.4% ↑14.7% ↑23.6% ↑105.2% ↑27.7% ↑2.0% TFR comparison across datasets Baseline MGCL Figure 4:Effect of clustering on TFR across different datasets. •Moment Embedding (Ours):This is our proposed method, where each graph is repre- sented by a 9-dimension...

2016