Operator Learning Meets Numerical Analysis: Improving Neural Networks through Iterative Methods

Emanuele Zappala, Daniel Levine, Sizhuang He, Syed Rizvi, Sacha Levy, David van Dijk

Main figure for 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

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #614 593 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #614 593 places worse
paper 0.8090 ±0.0060
paper 0.8090 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0714 Δ today 0.0914
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #636 592 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #636 592 places worse
paper 0.8040 ±0.0110
paper 0.8040 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0850 Δ today 0.0857
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #624 589 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #624 589 places worse
paper 0.6990 ±0.0100
paper 0.6990 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1090
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #528 484 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #528 484 places worse
paper 0.7130 ±0.0060
paper 0.7130 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0813 Δ today 0.0903
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

#ModelF1 ↑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
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)