FLAG: Adversarial Data Augmentation for Graph Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data augmentation helps neural networks generalize better, but it remains an open question how to effectively augment graph data to enhance the performance of GNNs (Graph Neural Networks). While most existing graph regularizers focus on augmenting graph topological structures by adding/removing edges, we offer a novel direction to augment in the input node feature space for better performance. We propose a simple but effective solution, FLAG (Free Large-scale Adversarial Augmentation on Graphs), which iteratively augments node features with gradient-based adversarial perturbations during training, and boosts performance at test time. Empirically, FLAG can be easily implemented with a dozen lines of code and is flexible enough to function with any GNN backbone, on a wide variety of large-scale datasets, and in both transductive and inductive settings. Without modifying a model's architecture or training setup, FLAG yields a consistent and salient performance boost across both node and graph classification tasks. Using FLAG, we reach state-of-the-art performance on the large-scale ogbg-molpcba, ogbg-ppa, and ogbg-code datasets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".