Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 76 references

SA-GNAS: Seed Architecture Expansion for Efficient Large-scale Graph Neural Architecture Search

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-stage seed-expansion search finds graph architectures that beat hand-designed GNNs on graphs up to 111 million nodes, in 8.46 GPU hours.

desk verdict SA-GNAS is a credible two-stage GNAS framework with solid experiments, but the headline 8.46-GPU-hour search time needs a runtime breakdown and a fairer GAUSS comparison before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02196 v1 pith:QMNL4ZV6 submitted 2024-12-03 cs.LG

Guanghui Zhu , Zipeng Ji , Jingyan Chen , Limin Wang , Chunfeng Yuan , Yihua Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords graphneuralarchitecturesearchlarge-scalegraphsseedexpansionweightedKendalltauentropyminimizationdifferentiablesamplingnodeclassification
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

This paper claims that graph neural architecture search can be made practical on graphs with billions of edges by splitting the search into two stages. First, several subgraphs are sampled and a differentiable search runs on each; the subgraph whose ranking of candidate architectures best matches the ranking on the full graph is picked as the seed, and its architecture becomes the seed architecture. Second, the seed architecture is expanded by repeatedly splitting the cell node with the highest operation entropy and searching only the local edges around the split, while the subgraph is also enlarged so the proxy keeps pace with the growing model. On five node-classification benchmarks, the method reports higher accuracy than human-designed GNNs and existing graph NAS methods, and on the largest graph it reduces search cost to about 8 GPU hours, a 2.8x speedup over the prior large-scale method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a cell-based micro search space in which each cell is a directed acyclic graph whose edges are candidate graph message-aggregation operations, softened into a continuous mixture exactly as in DARTS-style differentiable search. Two quantities drive the search: the weighted Kendall tau coefficient of Equation (6), which measures whether the ranking of candidate architectures on a sampled subgraph agrees with their ranking on the full graph and thereby selects the seed subgraph and seed architecture; and node entropy of Equation (10), defined as the average entropy of the operation distributions on a node's incoming edges, which identifies which node to split during expansion and acts as a regularizer in the localized bi-level search of Equation (13). The expansion stage also grows the seed subgraph by adding 1-hop neighbors, so the proxy data and the architecture complexity increase together.

What would settle it

Run SA-GNAS on a large heterophilic or class-imbalanced graph with its Kendall-tau seed selection and with random seed selection (Mrand) under the same expansion budget; if the Kendall-tau seed does not beat Mrand on full-graph test accuracy beyond run-to-run variance, the central transfer premise of the method is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that searching a GNN architecture on a small sampled subgraph and then growing it in place is both faster and more accurate than searching the full large-scale graph directly. The discovery is a two-stage procedure: stage one samples several subgraphs, runs differentiable graph architecture search on each, forms a performance sequence for each subgraph and for the full graph, and picks the subgraph whose weighted Kendall tau against the full graph is highest, together with the architecture found on it, as the seed. Stage two repeatedly splits the seed cell's intermediate node with the highest node entropy (the average Shannon entropy of its incoming edge-operation distributions), searches only the local edges around the split, and grows the subgraph by adding 1-hop neighbors so the proxy keeps up with the model. The paper reports that on five OGB and co-authorship benchmarks the final architectures outperform human-designed GNNs and seven GNAS baselines, and that on the billion-edge ogbn-papers100M the search costs 8.46 GPU hours on one GPU, a 2.8x speedup over the prior large-scale GNAS method.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the ranking of candidate architectures on a sampled subgraph, compared with their ranking on the full graph, reliably identifies a seed architecture whose quality transfers to the full graph; this empirical heuristic has no theoretical guarantee and could degrade on graphs whose sampled subgraphs are not representative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported results imply that large-scale graph architecture search no longer requires day-long GPU runs: on the five tested datasets the search finishes in 0.043 to 8.46 GPU hours on a single V100.
  • Because the K subgraph searches in the seed-selection stage are independent, the wall-clock cost divides almost evenly across GPUs; the paper reports 2.31 GPU hours on four GPUs for ogbn-papers100M.
  • The final architectures differ across datasets and mix several aggregators, supporting the paper's claim that automatic search is necessary because no single hand-designed GNN dominates.
  • The reported monotone decrease of cell entropy during expansion is presented as evidence that splitting high-entropy nodes yields progressively more stable architectures, which is the basis for Proposition 2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By extension, the weighted Kendall tau between proxy and full-graph performance rankings could serve as a reusable proxy-fidelity diagnostic for any subgraph-based training pipeline, not just architecture search.
  • The paper leaves untested whether entropy-guided node splitting acts as a general capacity-scheduling rule; a natural extension would apply the same expansion schedule to heterophilic graphs or link prediction, where sampled-neighborhood distributions differ.
  • The 2.8x speedup versus GAUSS inherits the experimental conditions of the GAUSS paper, since GAUSS is not open-source; an independent reimplementation under identical hardware and evaluation settings would be needed to confirm the comparison.
  • The ablation comparing ranking-consistency selection with random selection suggests a stress test: deliberately bias the sampling distribution so subgraph and full-graph rankings diverge, and check whether Kendall-tau selection degrades toward random selection as predicted.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SA-GNAS, a two-stage graph neural architecture search method for large-scale graphs. In the first stage, K subgraphs are sampled from the original graph via GraphSAINT, a differentiable cell-based architecture search is run independently on each subgraph, and the resulting K candidate architectures are then evaluated on all subgraphs and on the original graph. A weighted Kendall tau coefficient (Eq. 6) ranks the consistency between each subgraph's performance sequence and the original graph's performance sequence, and the architecture searched on the most consistent subgraph is selected as the seed architecture. In the second stage, the seed architecture is iteratively expanded by splitting the highest-entropy intermediate node and running a localized differentiable search with an entropy regularization term, while the seed subgraph is expanded by adding 1-hop neighbors. Experiments on five datasets (CS, Physics, ogbn-arxiv, ogbn-products, ogbn-papers100M) report accuracy improvements over human-designed GNNs and existing GNAS methods, and a search cost of 8.46 GPU hours on the 111M-node, 1.6B-edge ogbn-papers100M, claimed to be a 2.8x speedup over GAUSS. The code is made publicly available.

Significance. If the reported results hold, SA-GNAS would be a meaningful step toward practical GNAS on billion-edge graphs: it demonstrates that a two-stage subgraph-proxy search followed by entropy-guided architecture expansion can find architectures that outperform both hand-crafted GNNs and prior GNAS methods on five public benchmarks, with one of the first reported sub-10-GPU-hour searches on ogbn-papers100M. The paper also provides useful ablations (seed selection strategies, expansion strategies, sampling methods), hyperparameter sensitivity studies, and a parallelization analysis. A notable strength is the public code release, which supports reproducibility of the SA-GNAS pipeline itself. The main weakness is that the central efficiency claim, especially the 2.8x speedup and the 8.46-hour figure, rests on an under-specified evaluation protocol and an uncontrolled comparison with the non-open-source GAUSS baseline.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C2 / Algorithm 1 (line 8)] The headline efficiency claim is not verifiable from the manuscript. Algorithm 1 requires 'evaluate all candidate architectures in A on the original graph' to construct the performance sequence P, and Table III sets K=9 for ogbn-products and ogbn-papers100M. The paper never states whether these nine full-graph evaluations involve training each architecture from scratch on the full graph, fine-tuning subgraph-trained weights, or only running validation inference with subgraph-trained models. If full-graph training is required, nine such runs on a 111M-node, 1.6B-edge graph would almost certainly dominate the reported 8.46 GPU hours, making that number implausible unless a very short training protocol is used. If instead subgraph-trained weights are used directly for full-graph validation, then the ranking P is not based on models trained on the original graph, which weakens the justification for using ranking consistency as a proxy. The authors must provide a component-wise runtime breakdown (subgraph search, per-architecture full-graph evaluation, expansion iterations) and specify the exact training/evaluation protocol, including epochs, batch sizes, and hardware, for each dataset.
  2. [Section IV-A2 / Table V] The 2.8x speedup over GAUSS is an uncontrolled comparison. Section IV-A2 states that 'GAUSS is not open-source, we directly adopt the performance presented in the original paper [19]', and Table V lists GAUSS's search time as approximately 24 GPU hours, taken from the original paper. Because GAUSS was not re-run on the same Tesla V100 GPU, with the same training protocol, or using the same codebase, the reported speedup mixes hardware generations and implementation details. This is especially problematic because the absolute search-time numbers for the other baselines in Table V are also not accompanied by a description of how they were measured on the stated V100. The authors should either reproduce GAUSS under identical conditions, or explicitly re-frame the speedup as an approximate comparison across different reported settings and remove the implication of a controlled benchmark.
  3. [Section III-C2 / Equation (6)] The Kendall-tau-based seed selection is a heuristic whose validity is not established beyond the three ablated baselines in Table VII. The method assumes that a subgraph whose performance ranking of searched architectures best matches the full-graph ranking will also yield a final architecture that transfers well. While the ablation shows this criterion outperforms random selection, highest-validation-accuracy selection, and average-subgraph-accuracy selection on the five tested datasets, there is no evidence about when this proxy might fail, for example on graphs with very different train/validation distributions or non-stationary label shifts. This is not a fatal flaw, but the authors should temper the claim of 'most closely represents the characteristics of the original graph' and acknowledge that the selection criterion is an empirical heuristic.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section IV-A3 / Table III] The text says 'We initially set the number of intermediate nodes in the cell to 3', but Table III lists 6-8 intermediate nodes per cell for the different datasets. Please clarify whether the table reports the final cell size after expansion or the initial size before the expansion stage, and reconcile the discrepancy.
  2. [Section III-D2 / Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 (line 6) says it expands the seed subgraph using the graph sampler π(G), but Section III-D2 describes expanding the subgraph by randomly adding M 1-hop neighbors per node. These two descriptions should be unified so that the exact subgraph expansion mechanism is unambiguous.
  3. [Section III-C2] There is a typo: 'rand-orders' should be 'rank-orders'. Also, near Equation (6), the phrase 'when they are concordant but the △-differences are disproportionate' is vague; please define what 'disproportionate' means quantitatively.
  4. [Section IV-D2] The reference to 'Figure IX' in the text should be 'Table IX', since the entropy trajectories are displayed in a table, not a figure.
  5. [Table X] The header of Table X uses 'SA-NAS' in the method columns, but the paper's method is called SA-GNAS. Please correct this inconsistency.
  6. [Figures 7-9] Some axis labels contain duplicated or garbled tick labels (e.g., '1 1' in Figures 7(c)-(e), 8, and 9) and one panel is labeled 'Proucts' instead of 'Products'. These should be corrected for clarity.
  7. [Section III-D3 / Proposition 2] Proposition 2 is presented as a formal statement, but the text immediately acknowledges it is based on an 'intuitive conjecture' and that it is only validated experimentally. Either provide formal assumptions under which the inequality provably holds, or relabel it as an empirical observation to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: seed selection and entropy expansion are empirical heuristics, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Candidate architectures are generated by independent differentiable searches on sampled subgraphs; the seed is chosen by weighted Kendall tau between validation performance sequences on subgraphs and the original graph. This is an empirical model-selection heuristic, not a quantity defined in terms of the final reported accuracy, and the ablation against Mhighest shows the selection is not equivalent to picking the best validation accuracy on the original graph. The final architecture is obtained by further node-splitting expansion and localized search, then trained and evaluated separately, so no reported performance value is forced by the selection criterion. Proposition 2 is explicitly presented as a conjecture and validated experimentally (Table IX), and it is not used to derive the main performance or efficiency claims. Self-citations to PSP [18], operation-level early stopping [47], and related AutoML works appear only as related work or baselines and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or imported ansatz is invoked. The 8.46-GPU-hour search-time claim is under-specified because Algorithm 1 line 8 requires full-graph evaluations whose protocol and cost are not stated, but that is a verifiability/correctness concern, not a circularity. The paper therefore exhibits no significant circularity.

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

The framework rests on two external domain assumptions (DARTS relaxation and GraphSAINT unbiasedness) and two unproven heuristics specific to this paper (Kendall-tau proxy validity and entropy decrease under splitting). Additionally, several load-bearing hyperparameters are either tuned per dataset or not reported at all. These items are the real cost of the method's claimed efficiency and accuracy gains.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of sampled subgraphs K = 9 (CS), 10 (Physics), 8 (Arxiv), 9 (Products), 9 (Papers100M)
    Per-dataset hyperparameter from Table III; controls the candidate pool size and hence the seed selection quality and search cost.
  • Number of expansion iterations = 3 (CS), 3 (Physics), 4 (Arxiv), 5 (Products), 5 (Papers100M)
    Chosen per dataset from Table XI to maximize test accuracy; directly determines final architecture complexity.
  • Entropy regularization weight λ = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (13) as the weight on Lreg but never given a value for any experiment; needed to reproduce the expansion search.
  • M (1-hop neighbors added per node during subgraph expansion) = not reported
    Controls the rate of collaborative subgraph growth in Section III-D2; no value is stated anywhere in the paper.
  • Stopping condition Φ = not specified
    Algorithm 2 terminates when Φ is satisfied, but the condition is never defined; the final architecture and search cost depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math DARTS continuous relaxation and alternating gradient updates solve the bi-level architecture search (Eq. 5 and 13).
    Adopted from DARTS [34]; convergence is heuristic, but this is standard practice in differentiable NAS.
  • domain assumption GraphSAINT subgraph sampling gives low-bias aggregation estimates (Proposition 1).
    Taken from [23]; used to justify the validity of searching on subgraphs rather than the full graph.
  • ad hoc to paper Kendall-tau rank consistency between subgraph and full-graph performance is a valid proxy for transferability.
    This is the core selection criterion in Section III-C2 with no theoretical justification; if false, seed selection has no grounding.
  • ad hoc to paper Node splitting reduces architecture entropy (Proposition 2).
    Stated as an intuitive conjecture in Section III-D3 without proof; load-bearing for the expansion rule and its performance benefits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SA-GNAS: Seed Architecture Expansion for Efficient Large-scale Graph Neural Architecture Search." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMNL4ZV6

@misc{pith2026241202196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SA-GNAS: Seed Architecture Expansion for Efficient Large-scale Graph Neural Architecture Search},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMNL4ZV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02196}
}
read the original abstract

GNAS (Graph Neural Architecture Search) has demonstrated great effectiveness in automatically designing the optimal graph neural architectures for multiple downstream tasks, such as node classification and link prediction. However, most existing GNAS methods cannot efficiently handle large-scale graphs containing more than million-scale nodes and edges due to the expensive computational and memory overhead. To scale GNAS on large graphs while achieving better performance, we propose SA-GNAS, a novel framework based on seed architecture expansion for efficient large-scale GNAS. Similar to the cell expansion in biotechnology, we first construct a seed architecture and then expand the seed architecture iteratively. Specifically, we first propose a performance ranking consistency-based seed architecture selection method, which selects the architecture searched on the subgraph that best matches the original large-scale graph. Then, we propose an entropy minimization-based seed architecture expansion method to further improve the performance of the seed architecture. Extensive experimental results on five large-scale graphs demonstrate that the proposed SA-GNAS outperforms human-designed state-of-the-art GNN architectures and existing graph NAS methods. Moreover, SA-GNAS can significantly reduce the search time, showing better search efficiency. For the largest graph with billion edges, SA-GNAS can achieve 2.8 times speedup compared to the SOTA large-scale GNAS method GAUSS. Additionally, since SA-GNAS is inherently parallelized, the search efficiency can be further improved with more GPUs. SA-GNAS is available at https://github.com/PasaLab/SAGNAS.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: the cell-based search space design. Right: the cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall search framework of SA-GNAS, which consists of two stages: a) performance ranking consistency-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance ranking consistency-based subgraph matching. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The architecture expansion based on entropy minimization and localized differentiable architecture search. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectories of the overall entropy of the cell architec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance comparison with different subgraph sam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The influence of the number of sampled subgraphs on the final performance of searched architectures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The influence of the number of intermediate nodes in the cell on the final performance of searched architectures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The influence of the number of stacked cells on the final performance of searched architectures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The architectures searched on five large-scale datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Large-scale graph neural architecture search,

    C. Guan, X. Wang, H. Chen, Z. Zhang, and W. Zhu, “Large-scale graph neural architecture search,” in Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , vol. 162, 2022, pp. 7968–7981

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Representation learning on graphs: Methods and applications,

    W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Representation learning on graphs: Methods and applications,” IEEE Data Eng. Bull., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 52–74, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations , 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Graph attention networks,

    P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, and Y . Bengio, “Graph attention networks,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [4]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. L. Hamilton, R. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” in International Conference on Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems , 2017, pp. 1025–1035

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    How powerful are spectral graph neural networks,

    X. Wang and M. Zhang, “How powerful are spectral graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 162, 2022, pp. 23 341–23 362

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Graph neural network for traffic forecasting: A survey,

    W. Jiang and J. Luo, “Graph neural network for traffic forecasting: A survey,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 207, no. C, Nov. 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Combinatorial optimization and reasoning with graph neural networks,

    Q. Cappart, D. Ch ´etelat, E. B. Khalil, A. Lodi, C. Morris, and P. Veliˇckovi´c, “Combinatorial optimization and reasoning with graph neural networks,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 24, no. 1, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    J. G. Rittig, Q. Gao, M. Dahmen, A. Mitsos, and A. M. Schweidt- mann, Graph Neural Networks for the Prediction of Molecular Struc- ture–Property Relationships. Royal Society of Chemistry, Dec. 2023, pp. 159–181

    2023

  2. [9]

    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,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1–37, 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Hgnn+: General hypergraph neural networks,

    Y . Gao, Y . Feng, S. Ji, and R. Ji, “Hgnn+: General hypergraph neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 3181–3199, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Deep constraint- based propagation in graph neural networks,

    M. Tiezzi, G. Marra, S. Melacci, and M. Maggini, “Deep constraint- based propagation in graph neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 727–739, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Unsupervised graph embedding via adaptive graph learning,

    R. Zhang, Y . Zhang, C. Lu, and X. Li, “Unsupervised graph embedding via adaptive graph learning,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 5329–5336, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Automated machine learning on graphs: A survey,

    Z. Zhang, X. Wang, and W. Zhu, “Automated machine learning on graphs: A survey,” in Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2021, pp. 4704–4712

    2021

  7. [14]

    Graph neural architecture search,

    Y . Gao, H. Yang, P. Zhang, C. Zhou, and Y . Hu, “Graph neural architecture search,” in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020, pp. 1403–1409

    2020

  8. [15]

    Graph differentiable architec- ture search with structure learning,

    Y . Qin, X. Wang, Z. Zhang, and W. Zhu, “Graph differentiable architec- ture search with structure learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    Auto-gnn: Neural architecture search of graph neural networks,

    K. Zhou, Q. Song, X. Huang, and X. Hu, “Auto-gnn: Neural architecture search of graph neural networks,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.03184

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Search to aggregate neighborhood for graph neural network,

    H. ZHAO, Q. Y AO, and W. TU, “Search to aggregate neighborhood for graph neural network,” in 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , 2021, pp. 552–563

    2021

  11. [18]

    Psp: Progressive space pruning for efficient graph neural architecture search,

    G. Zhu, W. Wang, Z. Xu, F. Cheng, M. Qiu, C. Yuan, and Y . Huang, “Psp: Progressive space pruning for efficient graph neural architecture search,” in 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineer- ing (ICDE), 2022, pp. 2168–2181. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 1...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs,

    W. Hu, M. Fey, M. Zitnik, Y . Dong, H. Ren, B. Liu, M. Catasta, and J. Leskovec, “Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 22 118–22 133

    2020

  13. [21]

    Redundancy- free computation for graph neural networks,

    Z. Jia, S. Lin, R. Ying, J. You, J. Leskovec, and A. Aiken, “Redundancy- free computation for graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2020, pp. 997–1005

    2020

  14. [22]

    Cluster-gcn: An efficient algorithm for training deep and large graph convolutional networks,

    W.-L. Chiang, X. Liu, S. Si, Y . Li, S. Bengio, and C.-J. Hsieh, “Cluster-gcn: An efficient algorithm for training deep and large graph convolutional networks,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 2019, pp. 257–266

    2019

  15. [23]

    Graph- saint: Graph sampling based inductive learning method,

    H. Zeng, H. Zhou, A. Srivastava, R. Kannan, and V . Prasanna, “Graph- saint: Graph sampling based inductive learning method,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Layer-neighbor sampling — defusing neighborhood explosion in gnns,

    M. F. Balin and U. C ¸ ataly ¨urek, “Layer-neighbor sampling — defusing neighborhood explosion in gnns,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2023, pp. 25 819–25 836

    2023

  17. [25]

    Efficient graph neural architecture search,

    H. Zhao, L. Wei, quanming yao, and Z. He, “Efficient graph neural architecture search,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/ forum?id=IjIzIOkK2D6

    2021

  18. [26]

    Neural architecture search: A survey,

    T. Elsken, J. H. Metzen, and F. Hutter, “Neural architecture search: A survey,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 20, pp. 55:1–55:21, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Automl: A survey of the state-of-the-art,

    X. He, K. Zhao, and X. Chu, “Automl: A survey of the state-of-the-art,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 212, p. 106622, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    A comprehensive survey of neural architecture search: Challenges and solutions,

    P. Ren, Y . Xiao, X. Chang, P.-y. Huang, Z. Li, X. Chen, and X. Wang, “A comprehensive survey of neural architecture search: Challenges and solutions,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 54, no. 4, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Understanding and accelerating neural architecture search with training-free and theory-grounded metrics,

    W. Chen, X. Gong, J. Wu, Y . Wei, H. Shi, Z. Yan, Y . Yang, and Z. Wang, “Understanding and accelerating neural architecture search with training-free and theory-grounded metrics,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Migo-nas: Towards fast and generalizable neural architecture search,

    X. Zheng, R. Ji, Y . Chen, Q. Wang, B. Zhang, J. Chen, Q. Ye, F. Huang, and Y . Tian, “Migo-nas: Towards fast and generalizable neural architecture search,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 2936–2952, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    You only search once: Single shot neural architecture search via direct sparse optimization,

    X. Zhang, Z. Huang, N. Wang, S. Xiang, and C. Pan, “You only search once: Single shot neural architecture search via direct sparse optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 2891–2904, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Mngnas: distilling adaptive combination of multiple searched networks for one- shot neural architecture search,

    Z. Chen, G. Qiu, P. Li, L. Zhu, X. Yang, and B. Sheng, “Mngnas: distilling adaptive combination of multiple searched networks for one- shot neural architecture search,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sample-efficient neural architecture search by learning actions for monte carlo tree search,

    L. Wang, S. Xie, T. Li, R. Fonseca, and Y . Tian, “Sample-efficient neural architecture search by learning actions for monte carlo tree search,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 5503–5515, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Darts: Differentiable architecture search,

    H. Liu, K. Simonyan, and Y . Yang, “Darts: Differentiable architecture search,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Nas-fpn: Learning scalable fea- ture pyramid architecture for object detection,

    G. Ghiasi, T.-Y . Lin, and Q. V . Le, “Nas-fpn: Learning scalable fea- ture pyramid architecture for object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 7029–7038

    2019

  28. [36]

    Auto-deeplab: Hierarchical neural architecture search for semantic image segmentation,

    C. Liu, L.-C. Chen, F. Schroff, H. Adam, W. Hua, A. L. Yuille, and L. Fei-Fei, “Auto-deeplab: Hierarchical neural architecture search for semantic image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 82–92

    2019

  29. [37]

    Alphagan: Fully differ- entiable architecture search for generative adversarial networks,

    Y . Tian, L. Shen, G. Su, Z. Li, and W. Liu, “Alphagan: Fully differ- entiable architecture search for generative adversarial networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 6752–6766, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Nas-ctr: Efficient neural architecture search for click-through rate prediction,

    G. Zhu, F. Cheng, D. Lian, C. Yuan, and Y . Huang, “Nas-ctr: Efficient neural architecture search for click-through rate prediction,” in Proceed- ings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 332–342

    2022

  31. [39]

    Autogsr: Neural architecture search for graph-based session recommendation,

    J. Chen, G. Zhu, H. Hou, C. Yuan, and Y . Huang, “Autogsr: Neural architecture search for graph-based session recommendation,” in Pro- ceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 1694–1704

    2022

  32. [40]

    Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning,

    B. Zoph and Q. V . Le, “Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Efficient neural architecture search via parameters sharing,

    H. Pham, M. Guan, B. Zoph, Q. Le, and J. Dean, “Efficient neural architecture search via parameters sharing,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning , 2018, pp. 4095–4104

    2018

  34. [42]

    Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition,

    B. Zoph, V . Vasudevan, J. Shlens, and Q. V . Le, “Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 8697–8710

    2018

  35. [43]

    Hierarchical representations for efficient architecture search,

    H. Liu, K. Simonyan, O. Vinyals, C. Fernando, and K. Kavukcuoglu, “Hierarchical representations for efficient architecture search,” in Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search,

    E. Real, A. Aggarwal, Y . Huang, and Q. V . Le, “Regularized evolution for image classifier architecture search,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2019, pp. 4780–4789

    2019

  37. [45]

    Efficient neural architecture search via proximal iterations

    Q. Yao, J. Xu, W.-W. Tu, and Z. Zhu, “Efficient neural architecture search via proximal iterations.” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, 2020, pp. 6664–6671

    2020

  38. [46]

    Rethinking architecture selection in differentiable nas,

    R. Wang, M. Cheng, X. Chen, X. Tang, and C.-J. Hsieh, “Rethinking architecture selection in differentiable nas,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representation , 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Operation-level early stopping for robustifying differentiable nas,

    S. Jiang, Z. Ji, G. Zhu, C. Yuan, and Y . Huang, “Operation-level early stopping for robustifying differentiable nas,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Cyclic differentiable architecture search,

    H. Yu, H. Peng, Y . Huang, J. Fu, H. Du, L. Wang, and H. Ling, “Cyclic differentiable architecture search,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 211–228, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Zeronas: Differentiable generative adversarial networks search for zero- shot learning,

    C. Yan, X. Chang, Z. Li, W. Guan, Z. Ge, L. Zhu, and Q. Zheng, “Zeronas: Differentiable generative adversarial networks search for zero- shot learning,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 9733–9740, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    High performance graph convolutionai networks with applications in testability analysis,

    Y . Ma, H. Ren, B. Khailany, H. Sikka, L. Luo, K. Natarajan, and B. Yu, “High performance graph convolutionai networks with applications in testability analysis,” in Proceedings of the 56th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2019, pp. 1–6

    2019

  43. [51]

    Genetic-gnn: Evolutionary architecture search for graph neural networks,

    M. Shi, Y . Tang, X. Zhu, Y . Huang, D. Wilson, Y . Zhuang, and J. Liu, “Genetic-gnn: Evolutionary architecture search for graph neural networks,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 247, p. 108752, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Autoattend: Automated attention rep- resentation search,

    C. Guan, X. Wang, and W. Zhu, “Autoattend: Automated attention rep- resentation search,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2021, pp. 3864–3874

    2021

  45. [53]

    Simplifying architecture search for graph neural network,

    H. Zhao, L. Wei, and Q. Yao, “Simplifying architecture search for graph neural network,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2008.11652

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    One-shot graph neural architec- ture search with dynamic search space,

    Y . Li, Z. Wen, Y . Wang, and C. Xu, “One-shot graph neural architec- ture search with dynamic search space,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Meta-gnas: Meta-reinforcement learning for graph neural architecture search,

    Y . Li, J. Wu, and T. Deng, “Meta-gnas: Meta-reinforcement learning for graph neural architecture search,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 123, p. 106300, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Hgnas++: Efficient architecture search for heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    Y . Gao, P. Zhang, C. Zhou, H. Yang, Z. Li, Y . Hu, and P. S. Yu, “Hgnas++: Efficient architecture search for heterogeneous graph neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9448–9461, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Li and I

    Y . Li and I. King, AutoGraph: Automated Graph Neural Network . Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 189–201

    2020

  50. [58]

    Graphpas: Parallel architecture search for graph neural networks,

    J. Chen, J. Gao, Y . Chen, M. B. Oloulade, T. Lyu, and Z. Li, “Graphpas: Parallel architecture search for graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Sgas: Sequential greedy architecture search,

    G. Li, G. Qian, I. C. Delgadillo, M. M ¨uller, A. Thabet, and B. Ghanem, “Sgas: Sequential greedy architecture search,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 1617–1627

    2020

  52. [60]

    Autostg: Neural architecture search for predictions of spatio-temporal graph,

    Z. Pan, S. Ke, X. Yang, Y . Liang, Y . Yu, J. Zhang, and Y . Zheng, “Autostg: Neural architecture search for predictions of spatio-temporal graph,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference , 2021, p. 1846–1855

    2021

  53. [61]

    Do not train it: A linear neural architecture search of graph neural networks,

    P. Xu, L. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Sun, Y . Zhao, H. Yang, and B. Yu, “Do not train it: A linear neural architecture search of graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , 2023, pp. 38 826–38 847

    2023

  54. [62]

    Automated graph machine learning: Approaches, libraries, benchmarks and directions,

    X. Wang, Z. Zhang, H. Li, and W. Zhu, “Automated graph machine learning: Approaches, libraries, benchmarks and directions,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01288 JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 15

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Pasca: A graph neural architecture search system under the scalable paradigm,

    W. Zhang, Y . Shen, Z. Lin, Y . Li, X. Li, W. Ouyang, Y . Tao, Z. Yang, and B. Cui, “Pasca: A graph neural architecture search system under the scalable paradigm,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference , 2022

    2022

  56. [64]

    Efficient and explainable graph neural architecture search via monte-carlo tree search,

    Y . Sasaki, “Efficient and explainable graph neural architecture search via monte-carlo tree search,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15734

    2023

  57. [65]

    GraphPNAS: Learning prob- abilistic graph generators for neural architecture search,

    M. Li, J. Y . Liu, L. Sigal, and R. Liao, “GraphPNAS: Learning prob- abilistic graph generators for neural architecture search,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Graph neural networks with convolutional arma filters,

    F. M. Bianchi, D. Grattarola, L. Livi, and C. Alippi, “Graph neural networks with convolutional arma filters,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3496–3507, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Predict then propagate: Graph neural networks meet personalized pagerank,

    J. Klicpera, A. Bojchevski, and S. G ¨unnemann, “Predict then propagate: Graph neural networks meet personalized pagerank,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations , 2019

    2019

  60. [68]

    Puka, Kendall’s Tau

    L. Puka, Kendall’s Tau. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 713–715

    2011

  61. [69]

    A weighted kendall’s tau statistic,

    G. S. Shieh, “A weighted kendall’s tau statistic,” Statistics & Probability Letters, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 17–24, 1998

    1998

  62. [70]

    Toward unsupervised outlier model selection,

    Y . Zhao, S. Zhang, and L. Akoglu, “Toward unsupervised outlier model selection,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2022, pp. 773–782

    2022

  63. [71]

    Microsoft academic graph: When experts are not enough,

    K. Wang, Z. Shen, C. Huang, C.-H. Wu, Y . Dong, and A. Kanakia, “Microsoft academic graph: When experts are not enough,” Quantitative Science Studies, vol. 1, pp. 396–413, 2020

    2020

  64. [72]

    Auto- gnas: A parallel graph neural architecture search framework,

    J. Chen, J. Gao, Y . Chen, B. M. Oloulade, T. Lyu, and Z. Li, “Auto- gnas: A parallel graph neural architecture search framework,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems , vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 3117–3128, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    node2vec: Scalable feature learning for net- works,

    A. Grover and J. Leskovec, “node2vec: Scalable feature learning for net- works,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2016, pp. 855–864

    2016

  66. [74]

    Bag of tricks for node classification with graph neural networks,

    Y . Wang, J. Jin, W. Zhang, Y . Yu, Z. Zhang, and D. Wipf, “Bag of tricks for node classification with graph neural networks,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.13355

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Combining label propagation and simple models out-performs graph neural networks,

    Q. Huang, H. He, A. Singh, S.-N. Lim, and A. R. Benson, “Combining label propagation and simple models out-performs graph neural networks,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.13993

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 Guanghui Zhu (Member, IEEE) is currently an associate researcher in the School of Computer Sci- ence, and State Key Laboratory for No...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.