Operator Learning Meets Numerical Analysis: Improving Neural Networks through Iterative Methods
Abstract
Deep neural networks, despite their success in numerous applications, often function without established theoretical foundations. In this paper, we bridge this gap by drawing parallels between deep learning and classical numerical analysis. By framing neural networks as operators with fixed points representing desired solutions, we develop a theoretical framework grounded in iterative methods for operator equations. Under defined conditions, we present convergence proofs based on fixed point theory. We demonstrate that popular architectures, such as diffusion models and AlphaFold, inherently employ iterative operator learning. Empirical assessments highlight that performing iterations through network operators improves performance. We also introduce an iterative graph neural network, PIGN, that further demonstrates benefits of iterations. Our work aims to enhance the understanding of deep learning by merging insights from numerical analysis, potentially guiding the design of future networks with clearer theoretical underpinnings and improved performance.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 best reported | best at pub: On the Equivalence of Graph Convolution and Mixup (TMLR 2023) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 44 | GAT | 0.8897
±0.0014 best reported | best at pub: Learned Low Precision Graph Neural Networks (2020) |
| 692 | PIGN with GAT | 0.7920
±0.0090 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 | |
| 744 | PIGN with GCN | 0.7670
±0.0140 | This paper |
| 873 | IterGNN with GCN | 0.6090
±0.1740 | This paper |
| 874 | IterGNN with GAT | 0.6050
±0.1750 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 674 | PIGN with GCN | 0.6840
±0.0150 | This paper |
| 752 | PIGN with GAT | 0.6610
±0.0170 | This paper |
| 865 | IterGNN with GAT | 0.4991
±0.0494 | This paper |
| 876 | IterGNN with GCN | 0.4533
±0.1006 | This paper |
LRGB
| # | Model | F1 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NeuralWalker | 0.4912
±0.0042 | |
| 2 | PPGT | 0.4641
±0.0033 | |
| 3 | CRaWl | 0.4588
±0.0079 | |
| 41 | GatedGCN | 0.3880
±0.0040 | |
| 46 | GraphSAGE (PIGN) | 0.3560
±0.0037 | This paper |
| 81 | GCN | 0.2380
±0.0160 | |
| 85 | GCN (PIGN) | 0.1831
±0.0038 | This paper |
| 88 | GAT (PIGN) | 0.1706
±0.0046 | This paper |
| 93 | MLP | 0.1140
±0.0230 |
