DiffGCN: Graph Convolutional Networks via Differential Operators and Algebraic Multigrid Pooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) have shown to be effective in handling unordered data like point clouds and meshes. In this work we propose novel approaches for graph convolution, pooling and unpooling, inspired from finite differences and algebraic multigrid frameworks. We form a parameterized convolution kernel based on discretized differential operators, leveraging the graph mass, gradient and Laplacian. This way, the parameterization does not depend on the graph structure, only on the meaning of the network convolutions as differential operators. To allow hierarchical representations of the input, we propose pooling and unpooling operations that are based on algebraic multigrid methods, which are mainly used to solve partial differential equations on unstructured grids. To motivate and explain our method, we compare it to standard convolutional neural networks, and show their similarities and relations in the case of a regular grid. Our proposed method is demonstrated in various experiments like classification and part-segmentation, achieving on par or better than state of the art results. We also analyze the computational cost of our method compared to other GCNs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".