Ego-GNNs: Exploiting Ego Structures in Graph Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have achieved remarkable success as a framework for deep learning on graph-structured data. However, GNNs are fundamentally limited by their tree-structured inductive bias: the WL-subtree kernel formulation bounds the representational capacity of GNNs, and polynomial-time GNNs are provably incapable of recognizing triangles in a graph. In this work, we propose to augment the GNN message-passing operations with information de-fined on ego graphs (i.e., the induced subgraph surrounding each node). We term these approaches Ego-GNNs and show that Ego-GNNs are provably more powerful than standard message-passing GNNs. In particular, we show that Ego-GNNs are capable of recognizing closed triangles, which is essential given the prominence of transitivity in real-world graphs. We also motivate our approach from the perspective of graph signal processing as a form of multiplex graph convolution. Experimental results on node classification using synthetic and real data highlight the achievable performance gains using this approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".