Relational Compression: A Framework for Relational Fidelity in Constrained Representations
Abstract
What should a compressed representation preserve when the information of interest lies in relationships among elements rather than in the elements themselves? We formulate relational compression in the classical source-description-reconstruction sense, but with relational structure itself as the fidelity-bearing content. Each instance specifies the source relation, retained description, reconstructed or evaluated relation, fidelity criterion, and constrained resource. We use this interface to situate selected methods from graph summarization, spectral sparsification, similarity-preserving representation, and relational distillation within a common formulation while keeping their different reconstruction and resource assumptions explicit. We develop finite-codeword collision as one concrete realization. Same-codeword probability yields a relational geometry linking pair-specific alignment and separation to aggregate Rényi-2 occupancy and the spherical geometry of categorical assignments, with exact objective correspondences to squared-Euclidean centroid reconstruction and normalized graph association and cut. Graph and image studies illustrate complementary routes within the finite-codeword family: graph- and teacher-defined relational requirements act directly on equality or collision, while reconstruction acts through a joint decoder. Together, these results illustrate how distinct relational requirements can be formulated and tested within a common constrained-representation framework.
Figures & tables
| Role | Classical compression | Relational compression |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Source object | Relational object , with fixed or shared |
| Description | Retained message | Retained relational description |
| Reconstruction | Reproduced object | Reconstructed relation |
| Decoder | Rule mapping to | Rule constructing or evaluating its entries |
| Fidelity | Distortion | Relational distortion |
| Resource | Cost of the description | Cost in specified units |
| Construction | Source and fidelity | Description and reconstruction | Resource |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graph summaries ( Riondato et al., 2017 ) | Adjacency structure; reconstruction or cut-norm error | Vertex groups and superedge values; block-valued relation | Assignments and summary values |
| Spectral sparsification ( Spielman and Srivastava, 2011 ) | Laplacian quadratic forms; relative approximation | Sparse weighted edges; reconstructed Laplacian | Edge count or encoded weighted-edge description |
| Spectral hashing ( Weiss et al., 2008 ) | Source similarities; similarity-weighted code-distance criterion | Binary codes; Hamming geometry | Bits per element |
| -SNE ( van der Maaten and Hinton, 2008 ) | Pair-affinity distribution; KL discrepancy | Low-dimensional coordinates; normalized pair affinity | Coordinate dimension |
| Distance-wise relational distillation ( Park et al., 2019 ) | Teacher pair distances; relational discrepancy | Student features or student model; induced pair distances | Feature or model representation |
| Centroid quantization ( Gray and Neuhoff, 1998 ) | Squared source distances; within-code pairwise distortion | Assignments and centroid reproductions | Assignments and reproduction vectors |
| Role | Classical compression | Relational compression | Finite-codeword realization used here |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source / fidelity-bearing content | Source object and the content reconstructed from it | Relational object , with the fidelity-bearing structure conditional on shared | Explicit point geometry, graph structure, or teacher-defined relations; Study 4 instead uses source-image reconstruction to constrain the finite representation through a joint spatial decoder |
| Encoder-side observations | Usually the source observation itself | when encoder-side observations are present | Point coordinates, graph or node structural features, or image pixels mapped to finite assignments |
| Retained description | Retained message or code | Retained relational description | The source-specific comprises declared finite assignments, codes, or tokens plus any required auxiliary payload; is an optimization parameterization where applicable |
| Reconstruction / evaluation | Reconstructed source | , materialized or evaluated on demand | Same-code equality or collision may supply the evaluated relation directly or feed a richer structural or reconstruction decoder |
| Primitive representation-side relation | No universal analogue is prescribed | Depends on the chosen description mechanism | Hard equality and soft collision |
| Fidelity | Distortion | Relational distortion | Study-specific source fidelity acting on or through collision, including centroid/pairwise, graph, normalized-cut, reconstruction-defined, and signed-teacher criteria |
| Source | Importance cosine | Spearman | Spearman | Spearman |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MalNet unweighted | 0.979 | 0.975 | 0.666 | 0.616 |
| MalNet weighted | 0.744 | 0.724 | 0.500 | 0.550 |
| COLLAB | 0.833 | 0.814 | 0.523 | 0.774 |
| PROTEINS | 0.983 | 0.981 | 0.616 | 0.608 |
| Val Ncut | Test Ncut | Test | Test median Ncut | |
| 0 | ||||
| 0.03 | ||||
| 0.10 | ||||
| 0.20 | ||||
| 0.50 | ||||
| Spectral reference | 1.143 | 1.159 | 0.0805 | 1.104 |
| Largest hard volume fraction | Soft | Soft | |
| 0 | |||
| 0.03 | |||
| 0.10 | |||
| 0.20 | |||
| 0.50 | |||
| Spectral reference | 0.575 | – | – |
| Setting | Bits | Nominal bpp | PSNR | Hard | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No organization | 16 | 0.25 | 19.86 | 1.98 | 7.2 |
| Weaker, | 16 | 0.25 | 24.36 | 7.00 | 1 098 |
| Baseline, | 16 | 0.25 | 24.83 | 9.50 | 13 388 |
| Stronger, | 16 | 0.25 | 24.56 | 10.29 | 29 569 |
| Capacity, | 32 | 0.50 | 25.88 | 12.46 | 257 753 |
| Metric | Validation | Test |
|---|---|---|
| Representation epoch | 146 | |
| Teacher loss | 0.389 | 0.389 |
| Favored-pair hard collision | ||
| Disfavored-pair hard collision | ||
| Aggregate hard collision | ||
| Favored-pair enrichment | 13.13 | 12.40 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Diagnostic | Observed value |
|---|---|
| Maximum , centroid-trained trajectory | |
| Maximum , pair-trained trajectory | |
| Larger trajectory mean of | |
| Random encoder states: maximum | |
| Random encoder states: mean | |
| Initial gradient cosine / relative error |
| Component | Setting |
|---|---|
| Data | 768 points in from a six-component Gaussian mixture |
| Mixture weights | |
| Realized component counts | |
| Encoder | MLP with two hidden layers, width 32, nonlinearities |
| Code distribution | Exact enumeration of factorized Bernoulli words |
| Code temperature | 0.7 |
| Component | Setting |
|---|---|
| Collections | 20 MalNet-Tiny test LCCs; the same 20 weighted topologies; 20 COLLAB; 20 PROTEINS |
| Base graph-selection seed | 1337; deterministic collection-specific offsets for COLLAB and PROTEINS |
| Minimum source size | 512 nodes for MalNet; 16 nodes for TUDataset, after LCC extraction |
| Training fidelities | , , , and where defined |
| Entropy-field exclusions | Omit when its source Dirichlet denominator is zero; two selected COLLAB graphs are excluded from this criterion |
| Representation | Free graph-local categorical logits; no learned encoder |
| Source | Pair | Mean ARI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MalNet unweighted | / | 20 | 0.781 | -0.0025 | 0.0060 |
| MalNet unweighted | / | 20 | 0.166 | 0.0919 | 0.0698 |
| MalNet unweighted | / | 20 | 0.196 | 0.1068 | 0.0744 |
| MalNet weighted | / | 20 | 0.714 | 0.0011 | 0.0063 |
| MalNet weighted | / | 20 | 0.116 | 0.0785 | 0.0638 |
| MalNet weighted | / | 20 | 0.157 | 0.0834 | 0.0864 |
| Source | Training fidelity | Eval. | Eval. | Eval. | Eval. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MalNet unweighted | 0.0000 | -0.0017 | -0.0020 | 0.0732 | |
| MalNet unweighted | 0.0163 | 0.0000 | -0.0024 | 0.0911 | |
| MalNet unweighted | 0.0260 | 0.0058 | 0.0000 | 0.1057 | |
| MalNet unweighted | 0.0999 | 0.0690 | 0.0738 | 0.0000 | |
| MalNet weighted | 0.0000 | 0.0033 | -0.0023 | 0.0658 | |
| MalNet weighted | 0.0131 | 0.0000 | 0.0011 | 0.0785 |
| Split | Raw graphs | Retained graphs | Excluded below 512 LCC nodes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Train | 3500 | 1995 | 1505 |
| Validation | 500 | 275 | 225 |
| Test | 1000 | 584 | 416 |
| Component | Setting |
|---|---|
| Dataset | MalNet-Tiny, official source splits, labels unused |
| Cleaning | Undirected edge union, self-loop removal, coalesced duplicates, largest connected component |
| Minimum graph size | 512 vertices after LCC extraction |
| Node features | Constant and cleaned undirected degree features, original directed degree features and PageRank, deterministic random-walk return estimates |
| Random-walk estimates | 16 steps, 8 Rademacher probes, split/index-dependent deterministic seeds |
| Assignments | categorical states; |
| Component | Setting |
|---|---|
| Input | RGB, unit-range pixel values |
| Encoder width | 128 hidden channels |
| Residual stack | Two blocks, 64 residual hidden channels |
| Downsampling / upsampling | Three stride-2 analysis stages with GDN and three transposed-convolution synthesis stages, with IGDN after the first two synthesis stages, giving a latent grid |
| Spatial collision unit | One -bit token per latent position |
| Analysis output | convolution producing logits per spatial position |
| Setting | Bits | Nominal bpp | Selected epoch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No organization | 16 | 0.25 | 117 | |
| Weaker organization | 16 | 0.25 | 145 | |
| Baseline | 16 | 0.25 | 148 | |
| Stronger organization | 16 | 0.25 | 148 | |
| Capacity ablation | 32 | 0.50 | 150 |
| Setting | Test MSE | Test PSNR (dB) | Test MS-SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|
| No organization | 0.01034 | 19.86 | 0.738 |
| Weaker organization | 0.00367 | 24.36 | 0.882 |
| Baseline | 0.00329 | 24.83 | 0.896 |
| Stronger organization | 0.00350 | 24.56 | 0.892 |
| Capacity ablation | 0.00258 | 25.88 | 0.920 |
| Component | Setting |
|---|---|
| Dataset split | 6149 train / 1020 validation / 1020 test, as in Study 4 |
| Input | RGB |
| Teacher | Frozen DINO ViT-S/8, final spatial patch tokens, normalized before cosine evaluation |
| Teacher source | Official facebookresearch/dino |
| Teacher checkpoint | dino_deitsmall8_pretrain.pth , official release |
| Teacher grid | patch-token embeddings |
Representation Learning
Representation learning develops data transformations that expose useful structure for prediction, transfer, generation, and control.
See all 813 papers