pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.14642 · v4 · submitted 2024-04-23 · 💻 cs.LG

Uncertainty Quantification on Graph Learning: A Survey

Chao Chen , Chenghua Guo , Rui Xu , Jiujiu Chen , Xiangwen Liao , Xi Zhang , Sihong Xie , Hui Xiong
show 1 more author
Philip Yu
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords uncertainty quantificationgraph neural networksgraph learninggraphical modelssurveyuncertainty representationuncertainty handling
0
0 comments X

The pith

This survey organizes uncertainty quantification methods for graphical models along two dimensions: representation and handling.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper systematically reviews uncertainty quantification techniques developed for graphical models such as graph neural networks and graph foundation models. It sets itself apart from broader UQ surveys by narrowing the scope to these structured data settings. The review structures the literature using two complementary axes: how uncertainty is represented and how it is handled during learning or inference. Synthesizing existing methods and trends along these axes is intended to clarify open problems at the intersection of graph learning and uncertainty quantification. The goal is to guide researchers toward targeted advancements in both areas.

Core claim

By concentrating specifically on graphical models and organizing the literature along the complementary dimensions of uncertainty representation and uncertainty handling, the survey synthesizes established methodologies and emerging trends to bridge gaps in understanding key challenges and opportunities in UQ for graphical models.

What carries the argument

The two complementary dimensions of uncertainty representation and uncertainty handling that structure the categorization of methods for graphical models.

If this is right

  • Graph learning practitioners gain a clearer map for selecting or adapting UQ techniques suited to their models.
  • Researchers can more readily spot imbalances between representation-focused and handling-focused work.
  • Developers of graph foundation models receive guidance on incorporating uncertainty awareness systematically.
  • Cross-pollination between the graph learning and general UQ communities is facilitated by the shared structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same two-dimension lens could be tested on uncertainty quantification for other relational data structures such as hypergraphs or knowledge graphs.
  • Empirical benchmarks could be designed that explicitly contrast methods strong in representation versus those strong in handling on the same graph tasks.
  • Dynamic or temporal graph settings might require an additional dimension in future extensions of this organization.

Load-bearing premise

Synthesizing methodologies and trends along the dimensions of representation and handling will effectively bridge gaps in understanding challenges and opportunities.

What would settle it

A follow-up study that applies the two-dimension organization and fails to surface any previously unrecognized challenge or opportunity specific to UQ on graphs would undermine the survey's organizing claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2404.14642 by Chao Chen, Chenghua Guo, Hui Xiong, Jiujiu Chen, Philip Yu, Rui Xu, Sihong Xie, Xiangwen Liao, Xi Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We first show an example from a recommendation system, where the user of interest (in gray) links to other users and contents with various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The taxonomy of uncertainty quantification methods in graph learning is organized into two main branches: Uncertainty Representation and Uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Graphical models have demonstrated their exceptional capabilities across numerous applications. However, their performance, confidence, and trustworthiness are often limited by the inherent randomness in data generation and the lack of knowledge to accurately model real-world complexities. There has been increased interest in developing uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques tailored to graphical models. In this survey, we systematically examine existing works on UQ for graphical models. This survey distinguishes itself from most existing UQ surveys by specifically concentrating on graphical models, including graph neural networks and graph foundation models. We organize the literature along two complementary dimensions: uncertainty representation and uncertainty handling. By synthesizing both established methodologies and emerging trends, we aim to bridge gaps in understanding key challenges and opportunities in UQ for graphical models, inspiring researchers on graphical models or uncertainty quantification to make further advancements at the cross of the two fields.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. This survey reviews uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques for graphical models, including graph neural networks and graph foundation models. It distinguishes itself from prior UQ surveys by its specific focus on graphical models and organizes the literature along two complementary dimensions—uncertainty representation and uncertainty handling—with the aim of synthesizing established methods and emerging trends to identify challenges and opportunities at the intersection of the two fields.

Significance. A comprehensive, well-organized survey in this niche could help researchers navigate the growing literature on UQ for graph-structured data and highlight open problems. The two-dimensional taxonomy is a reasonable organizing principle for a review, though its ultimate value depends on the depth and balance of coverage across both dimensions.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the survey 'distinguishes itself from most existing UQ surveys' by its focus on graphical models, but the manuscript should include a short dedicated subsection (e.g., in the introduction or related-work section) that explicitly contrasts the proposed taxonomy with the structure of the most relevant prior surveys to make this distinction concrete.
  2. Because the paper is a survey, the authors should add a brief limitations paragraph (perhaps in the conclusion) that acknowledges potential gaps in coverage, such as very recent preprints on graph foundation models or UQ methods published after the literature cutoff date.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the survey, including recognition of its focused scope on graphical models and the utility of the two-dimensional taxonomy. The recommendation for minor revision is noted. No specific major comments appear in the report, so we have no individual points requiring rebuttal or clarification at this stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; survey organizes external literature without derivations

full rationale

This is a survey paper with no mathematical derivations, predictions, or first-principles results. The central claim is a taxonomic organization of existing works along uncertainty representation and handling dimensions, plus a scope distinction from prior UQ surveys. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The paper is self-contained as a review of external literature and receives the default non-circularity finding for such works.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Being a survey paper, it does not introduce new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. It relies on the body of cited literature for its content.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5685 in / 1092 out tokens · 23616 ms · 2026-05-24T02:24:48.124518+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Random-Set Graph Neural Networks

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RS-GNNs predict random sets over classes using belief functions to jointly produce class probabilities and epistemic uncertainty estimates for graph nodes.

  2. Quantile-Free Uncertainty Quantification in Graph Neural Networks

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    QpiGNN provides a quantile-free dual-head architecture for GNN uncertainty quantification that directly optimizes coverage and interval width, yielding 22% higher coverage and 50% narrower intervals than baselines on ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

238 extracted references · 238 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata,

    S. Rayana and L. Akoglu, “Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata,” in SIGKDD, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Opinion spam detection: Using multi-iterative graph-based model,

    S. Noekhah, N. binti Salim, and N. H. Zakaria, “Opinion spam detection: Using multi-iterative graph-based model,” IP & M , 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A social identity approach to identify familiar strangers in a social network,

    N. Agarwal, H. Liu, S. Murthy, A. Sen, and X. Wang, “A social identity approach to identify familiar strangers in a social network,” in AAAI, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Semi-supervised classifica- tion of graph convolutional networks with laplacian rank constraints,

    H. Zhang, G. Lu, M. Zhan, and B. Zhang, “Semi-supervised classifica- tion of graph convolutional networks with laplacian rank constraints,” Neural Processing Letters , 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” ICLR, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” NeurIPS, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Graph neural networks in recommender systems: a survey,

    S. Wu, F. Sun, W. Zhang, X. Xie, and B. Cui, “Graph neural networks in recommender systems: a survey,” CSUR, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Calibration of neural networks using splines,

    K. Gupta, A. Rahimi, T. Ajanthan, T. Mensink, C. Sminchisescu, and R. Hartley, “Calibration of neural networks using splines,” ICLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    On calibration of modern neural networks,

    C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y . Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger, “On calibration of modern neural networks,” in ICML, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Mbct: Tree-based feature-aware binning for individual uncertainty calibration,

    S. Huang, Y . Wang, L. Mou, H. Zhang, H. Zhu, C. Yu, and B. Zheng, “Mbct: Tree-based feature-aware binning for individual uncertainty calibration,” in WWW, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Fast and flexible protein design using deep graph neural networks,

    A. Strokach, D. Becerra, C. Corbi-Verge, A. Perez-Riba, and P. M. Kim, “Fast and flexible protein design using deep graph neural networks,” Cell systems, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Deeprank-gnn: a graph neural network framework to learn patterns in protein–protein interfaces,

    M. R ´eau, N. Renaud, L. C. Xue, and A. M. Bonvin, “Deeprank-gnn: a graph neural network framework to learn patterns in protein–protein interfaces,” Bioinformatics, 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Prediction of protein–protein interaction using graph neural networks,

    K. Jha, S. Saha, and H. Singh, “Prediction of protein–protein interaction using graph neural networks,” Scientific Reports, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Uncertainty in graph neural networks: A survey,

    F. Wang, Y . Liu, K. Liu, Y . Wang, S. Medya, and P. S. Yu, “Uncertainty in graph neural networks: A survey,” TMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Application of uncertainty quantification to artificial intelligence in healthcare: A review of last decade (2013–2023),

    S. Seoni, V . Jahmunah, M. Salvi, P. D. Barua, F. Molinari, and U. R. Acharya, “Application of uncertainty quantification to artificial intelligence in healthcare: A review of last decade (2013–2023),” Computers in Biology and Medicine , 2023

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Structural and parameter uncertainty in bayesian cost-effectiveness models,

    C. H. Jackson, L. D. Sharples, and S. G. Thompson, “Structural and parameter uncertainty in bayesian cost-effectiveness models,”J. R. Stat. Soc., C: Appl. Stat. , 2010

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    Uncertainty-aware decision-making for autonomous driving at uncon- trolled intersections,

    X. Tang, G. Zhong, S. Li, K. Yang, K. Shu, D. Cao, and X. Lin, “Uncertainty-aware decision-making for autonomous driving at uncon- trolled intersections,” TITS, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Uncertainty-aware multimodal trajectory predic- tion via a single inference from a single model,

    H. Suk and S. Kim, “Uncertainty-aware multimodal trajectory predic- tion via a single inference from a single model,” Sensors, 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Two birds with one stone: Enhancing uncertainty quantification and interpretability with graph functional neural process,

    L. Kong, H. Sun, Y . Zhuang, H. Wang, W. Mu, and C. Zhang, “Two birds with one stone: Enhancing uncertainty quantification and interpretability with graph functional neural process,” in AISTATS, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Model un- certainty and correctability for directed graphical models,

    P. Birmpa, J. Feng, M. A. Katsoulakis, and L. Rey-Bellet, “Model un- certainty and correctability for directed graphical models,” SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification , 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Towards trustworthy knowledge graph reasoning: An uncertainty aware perspective,

    B. Ni, Y . Wang, L. Cheng, E. Blasch, and T. Derr, “Towards trustworthy knowledge graph reasoning: An uncertainty aware perspective,” in AAAI, 2025

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Implementation of a gaussian markov random field sampler for forward uncertainty quantification in the ice-sheet and sea-level system model v4. 19,

    K. Bulthuis and E. Larour, “Implementation of a gaussian markov random field sampler for forward uncertainty quantification in the ice-sheet and sea-level system model v4. 19,” Geoscientific Model Development, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Bayesian networks in risk informed decision-making,

    A. Tchangani, “Bayesian networks in risk informed decision-making,” Advances in Mathematics Research , 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Tech- niques, applications and challenges,

    M. Abdar, F. Pourpanah, S. Hussain, D. Rezazadegan, L. Liu, M. Ghavamzadeh, P. Fieguth, X. Cao, A. Khosravi, U. R. Acharya et al., “A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Tech- niques, applications and challenges,” Information fusion, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks,

    J. Gawlikowski, C. R. N. Tassi, M. Ali, J. Lee, M. Humt, J. Feng, A. Kruspe, R. Triebel, P. Jung, R. Roscher et al. , “A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks,” AIR, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    A survey on uncertainty estimation in deep learning classification systems from a bayesian perspective,

    J. Mena, O. Pujol, and J. Vitri `a, “A survey on uncertainty estimation in deep learning classification systems from a bayesian perspective,” CSUR, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    A survey on bayesian deep learning,

    H. Wang and D.-Y . Yeung, “A survey on bayesian deep learning,” CSUR, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons,

    A. F. Psaros, X. Meng, Z. Zou, L. Guo, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Uncertainty quantification in scientific machine learning: Methods, metrics, and comparisons,” Journal of Computational Physics , 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Sources of uncertainty in machine learning–a statisticians’ view,

    C. Gruber, P. O. Schenk, M. Schierholz, F. Kreuter, and G. Kauermann, “Sources of uncertainty in machine learning–a statisticians’ view,” arXiv, 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Aleatoric and epistemic uncer- tainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods,

    E. H ¨ullermeier and W. Waegeman, “Aleatoric and epistemic uncer- tainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods,” Machine Learning, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Optimization under uncertainty in the era of big data and deep learning: When machine learning meets mathematical programming,

    C. Ning and F. You, “Optimization under uncertainty in the era of big data and deep learning: When machine learning meets mathematical programming,” Computers & Chemical Engineering , 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Dealing with noise problem in machine learning data-sets: A systematic review,

    S. Gupta and A. Gupta, “Dealing with noise problem in machine learning data-sets: A systematic review,” Procedia Comput. Sci., 2019

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Graph odes and beyond: A comprehensive survey on integrating differential equa- tions with graph neural networks,

    Z. Liu, X. Wang, B. Wang, Z. Huang, C. Yang, and W. Jin, “Graph odes and beyond: A comprehensive survey on integrating differential equa- tions with graph neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23167 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Graphical models,

    M. I. Jordan, “Graphical models,” 2004

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    How powerful are graph neural networks?

    K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, and S. Jegelka, “How powerful are graph neural networks?” ICLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Link prediction based on graph neural networks,

    M. Zhang and Y . Chen, “Link prediction based on graph neural networks,” NeurIPS, 2018

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter?

    A. Der Kiureghian and O. Ditlevsen, “Aleatory or epistemic? does it matter?” Structural safety, 2009

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    Uncertainsam: Fast and efficient uncertainty quantification of the segment anything model,

    T. Kaiser, T. Norrenbrock, and B. Rosenhahn, “Uncertainsam: Fast and efficient uncertainty quantification of the segment anything model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05049 , 2025. 20

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Position: Uncertainty quantification needs reassessment for large-language model agents,

    M. Kirchhof, G. Kasneci, and E. Kasneci, “Position: Uncertainty quantification needs reassessment for large-language model agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22655 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Hacking, The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference

    I. Hacking, The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference . Cambridge University Press, 2006

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?

    A. Kendall and Y . Gal, “What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision?” NeurIPS, 2017

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    A deeper look into aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty disentanglement,

    M. Valdenegro-Toro and D. Saromo, “A deeper look into aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty disentanglement,” 2022

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    A general framework for quantifying aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in graph neural networks,

    S. Munikoti, D. Agarwal, L. Das, and B. Natarajan, “A general framework for quantifying aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in graph neural networks,” Neurocomputing, 2023

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in probability elicita- tion with an example from hazardous waste management,

    S. C. Hora, “Aleatory and epistemic uncertainty in probability elicita- tion with an example from hazardous waste management,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety , 1996

    work page 1996

  46. [46]

    Omitted variable bias in machine learned causal models,

    V . Chernozhukov, C. Cinelli, W. K. Newey, A. Sharma, and V . Syrgka- nis, “Omitted variable bias in machine learned causal models,” cemmap working paper, Tech. Rep., 2021

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Omitted variable bias: Examining management research with the impact threshold of a confounding variable (itcv),

    J. R. Busenbark, H. Yoon, D. L. Gamache, and M. C. Withers, “Omitted variable bias: Examining management research with the impact threshold of a confounding variable (itcv),” J. Manag., 2022

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias,

    C. Cinelli and C. Hazlett, “Making sense of sensitivity: Extending omitted variable bias,” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Method. , 2020

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks,

    C. G. Northcutt, A. Athalye, and J. Mueller, “Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine learning benchmarks,” NeurIPS, 2021

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    R. J. Little and D. B. Rubin, Statistical analysis with missing data . John Wiley & Sons, 2019

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Boosting out-of-distribution image detection with epistemic uncertainty,

    D. Oh, D. Ji, O. Kwon, and Y . Hyun, “Boosting out-of-distribution image detection with epistemic uncertainty,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 109 289–109 298, 2022

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    Improving out-of-distribution detection via epistemic uncertainty adversarial training,

    D. Everett, A. T. Nguyen, L. E. Richards, and E. Raff, “Improving out-of-distribution detection via epistemic uncertainty adversarial training,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.03148

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Deup: Direct epistemic uncertainty prediction,

    S. Lahlou, M. Jain, H. Nekoei, V . I. Butoi, P. Bertin, J. Rector-Brooks, M. Korablyov, and Y . Bengio, “Deup: Direct epistemic uncertainty prediction,” TMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Epistemic uncertainty sampling,

    V .-L. Nguyen, S. Destercke, and E. H¨ullermeier, “Epistemic uncertainty sampling,” in Discovery Science, 2019

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Quantifying epistemic uncertainty in deep learning,

    Z. Huang, H. Lam, and H. Zhang, “Quantifying epistemic uncertainty in deep learning,” arXiv, 2021

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes,

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, “Auto-encoding variational bayes,” arXiv, 2013

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    R. M. Neal, Bayesian learning for neural networks . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Variational graph auto-encoders,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Variational graph auto-encoders,” NeurIPS workshop, 2016

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    Graphvae: Towards generation of small graphs using variational autoencoders,

    M. Simonovsky and N. Komodakis, “Graphvae: Towards generation of small graphs using variational autoencoders,” in ICANN, 2018

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Bayesian graph convolutional neural networks for semi-supervised classification,

    Y . Zhang, S. Pal, M. Coates, and D. Ustebay, “Bayesian graph convolutional neural networks for semi-supervised classification,” in AAAI, 2019

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Uncertainty propagation in node classification,

    Z. Xu, C. Lawrence, A. Shaker, and R. Siarheyeu, “Uncertainty propagation in node classification,” in ICDM, 2022

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Uncertainty aware semi- supervised learning on graph data,

    X. Zhao, F. Chen, S. Hu, and J.-H. Cho, “Uncertainty aware semi- supervised learning on graph data,” NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Variational inference for graph convolutional networks in the absence of graph data and adversarial settings,

    P. Elinas, E. V . Bonilla, and L. Tiao, “Variational inference for graph convolutional networks in the absence of graph data and adversarial settings,” NeurIPS, 2020

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    Bayesian semi-supervised learning with graph gaussian processes,

    Y . C. Ng, N. Colombo, and R. Silva, “Bayesian semi-supervised learning with graph gaussian processes,” NeurIPS, 2018

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Uncertainty aware graph gaussian process for semi-supervised learning,

    Z.-Y . Liu, S.-Y . Li, S. Chen, Y . Hu, and S.-J. Huang, “Uncertainty aware graph gaussian process for semi-supervised learning,” in AAAI, 2020

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    Uncertainty estimation for molecules: Desiderata and methods,

    T. Wollschl ¨ager, N. Gao, B. Charpentier, M. A. Ketata, and S. G ¨unnemann, “Uncertainty estimation for molecules: Desiderata and methods,” in ICML, 2023

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Understanding contrastive learning via distributionally robust optimization,

    J. Wu, J. Chen, J. Wu, W. Shi, X. Wang, and X. He, “Understanding contrastive learning via distributionally robust optimization,” NeurIPS, 2024

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Robust graph learning under wasserstein uncertainty,

    X. Zhang, Y . Xu, Q. Liu, Z. Liu, J. Lu, and Q. Wang, “Robust graph learning under wasserstein uncertainty,” arXiv, 2021

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Uncertainty-aware robust learning on noisy graphs,

    S. Chen, K. Ding, and S. Zhu, “Uncertainty-aware robust learning on noisy graphs,” ICASSP, 2025

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Robustness of graph neural networks at scale,

    S. Geisler, T. Schmidt, H. S ¸irin, D. Z ¨ugner, A. Bojchevski, and S. G ¨unnemann, “Robustness of graph neural networks at scale,” NeurIPS, 2021

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Topology attack and defense for graph neural networks: An optimization perspective,

    K. Xu, H. Chen, S. Liu, P.-Y . Chen, T.-W. Weng, M. Hong, and X. Lin, “Topology attack and defense for graph neural networks: An optimization perspective,” IJCAI, 2019

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Adversarial training methods for network embedding,

    Q. Dai, X. Shen, L. Zhang, Q. Li, and D. Wang, “Adversarial training methods for network embedding,” in WWW, 2019

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    Toward enhanced robustness in unsupervised graph representation learning: A graph information bottleneck perspective,

    J. Wang, M. Luo, J. Li, Z. Liu, J. Zhou, and Q. Zheng, “Toward enhanced robustness in unsupervised graph representation learning: A graph information bottleneck perspective,” TKDE, 2023

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    Gcc: Graph contrastive coding for graph neural network pre-training,

    J. Qiu, Q. Chen, Y . Dong, J. Zhang, H. Yang, M. Ding, K. Wang, and J. Tang, “Gcc: Graph contrastive coding for graph neural network pre-training,” in SIGKDD, 2020

    work page 2020

  75. [75]

    Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks,

    W. Hu, B. Liu, J. Gomes, M. Zitnik, P. Liang, V . Pande, and J. Leskovec, “Strategies for pre-training graph neural networks,” ICLR, 2020

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Uncertainty modeling in graph neural networks via stochastic differential equations,

    R. Bergna, S. Calvo Ordo ˜nez, F. Opolka, P. Li `o, and J. M. Hern´andez-Lobato, “Uncertainty modeling in graph neural networks via stochastic differential equations,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , Jan 2025, iCLR 2025 Spotlight. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=TYSQYx9vwd

    work page 2025

  77. [77]

    Graph neural stochastic diffusion for estimating uncertainty in node classification,

    X. Lin, W. Zhang, F. Shi, C. Zhou, L. Zou, X. Zhao, D. Yin, S. Pan, and Y . Cao, “Graph neural stochastic diffusion for estimating uncertainty in node classification,” inForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    Dynamic causal explanation based diffusion-variational graph neural network for spatiotemporal forecasting,

    G. Liang, P. Tiwari, S. Nowaczyk, S. Byttner, and F. Alonso-Fernandez, “Dynamic causal explanation based diffusion-variational graph neural network for spatiotemporal forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  79. [79]

    Graphgdp: Generative diffusion processes for permutation invariant graph generation,

    H. Huang, L. Sun, B. Du, Y . Fu, and W. Lv, “Graphgdp: Generative diffusion processes for permutation invariant graph generation,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 2022, pp. 201–210

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    Aggdn: A continuous stochastic predictive model for monitoring sporadic time series on graphs,

    Y . Xing, J. Wu, Y . Liu, X. Yang, and X. Wang, “Aggdn: A continuous stochastic predictive model for monitoring sporadic time series on graphs,” in International Conference on Neural Information Process- ing. Springer, 2023, pp. 130–146

    work page 2023

Showing first 80 references.