Cited by 685Advanced Graph Neural NetworksGraph Theory and AlgorithmsGraph theory and applications

CayleyNets: Graph Convolutional Neural Networks With Complex Rational Spectral Filters

Open access
Levie, Ron, Monti, Federico, Bresson, Xavier, Bronstein, Michael M.·2019·IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing

Abstract

The rise of graph-structured data such as social networks, regulatory networks, citation graphs, and functional brain networks, in combination with resounding success of deep learning in various applications, has brought the interest in generalizing deep learning models to non-Euclidean domains. In this paper, we introduce a new spectral domain convolutional architecture for deep learning on graphs. The core ingredient of our model is a new class of parametric rational complex functions (Cayley polynomials) allowing to efficiently compute spectral filters on graphs that specialize on frequency bands of interest. Our model generates rich spectral filters that are localized in space, scales linearly with the size of the input data for sparsely connected graphs, and can handle different constructions of Laplacian operators. Extensive experimental results show the superior performance of our approach, in comparison to other spectral domain convolutional architectures, on spectral image classification, community detection, vertex classification, and matrix completion tasks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tsp.2018.2879624

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. J. Atwood and D. Towsley. Diffusion-convolutional neural networks. pages 1993-2001, 2016.
  2. D. Boscaini, J. Masci, E. Rodolà, and M. M. Bronstein. Learning shape correspondence with anisotropic convolutional neural networks. In Proc. NIPS, 2016.
  3. J. Bruna, W. Zaremba, A. Szlam, and Y. LeCun. Spectral networks and locally connected networks on graphs. Proc. ICLR, 2013.
  4. A. Coates and A. Ng. Selecting Receptive Fields in Deep Networks. In Proc. NIPS, 2011.
  5. M. Defferrard, X. Bresson, and P. Vandergheynst. Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering. In Proc. NIPS, 2016.
  6. D. K. Duvenaud et al. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. In Proc. NIPS, 2015.
  7. K. Gregor and Y. LeCun. Learning fast approximations of sparse coding. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'10, pages 399-406, USA, 2010. Omnipress.
  8. S. I. Ktena, S. Parisot, E. Ferrante, M. Rajchl, M. Lee, B. Glocker, and D. Rueckert. Distance metric learning using graph convolutional networks: Application to functional brain networks. pages 469-477, 2017.
  9. F. Monti, M. M. Bronstein, and X. Bresson. Geometric matrix completion with recurrent multi-graph neural networks. Proc. NIPS, 2017.
  10. N. Rao, H.-F. Yu, P. K. Ravikumar, and I. S. Dhillon. Collaborative filtering with graph information: Consistency and scalable methods. In Proc. NIPS, 2015.
  11. S. Sukhbaatar, a. szlam, and R. Fergus. Learning multiagent communication with backpropa- gation. pages 2244-2252, 2016.
  12. P. Veličković, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Liò, and Y. Bengio. Graph attention networks. Proc. ICLR 2018, 2018.
  13. M. Xu, R. Jin, and Z.-H. Zhou. Speedup matrix completion with side information: Application to multi-label learning. In Proc. NIPS, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levie, R., Monti, F., Bresson, X., & Bronstein, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
  • Università della Svizzera italiana (CH)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Intel (Israel) (IL)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing
Published
2019-01-01
Volume
67
Issue
1
Pages
97-109
ISSN
  • 1053-587X (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0476
OpenAlex
W2618170429
Cited by
685
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 104 · 2021: 132 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 3
FWCI
43.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • ERC Consolidator (724228 (LEMAN))
  • Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Graph Theory and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Graph theory and applications
Keywords
graph convolutional networks, spectral graph convolution, graph Laplacian, spectral image classification, community detection, node classification, matrix completion, non-Euclidean data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review