EDiS: Edge Disjoint Subgraph Sparsification Framework for Graph Neural Networks
Authors: Sai Karthik Navuluru, Siddhartha Shankar Das, Franck Dernoncourt, S M Ferdous, Ryan A. Rossi, Nesreen K. Ahmed, Baris Coskunuzer, Alex Pothen, +2 more
Organizations: University of Texas at Dallas · Pacific Northwest National Laboratory · Adobe Research · University of North Carolina at Charlotte · Cisco · Purdue University
Sparse GNN training reduces computation, but deciding which edges to keep can be costly. Reusing one sparse graph is cheap, but locks training to a fixed topology, while varying it across epochs can require repeated sampling or recomputation. We introduce EDiS (Edge-Disjoint Subgraph sparsification framework), which separates one-time structural extraction from per-epoch graph composition. EDiS decomposes the graph once into cacheable edge-disjoint subgraphs, then recombines them into graphs with edge-budget constraints across epochs and retention ratios without re-extracting structure. Our default construction uses feature-based scores and successive maximum score covering forests, while the same composition mechanism also supports alternative edge selection rules. We provide a combinatorial analysis of the per-epoch sampler, the composition step that draws a training graph from the cached decomposition. We show that, under the default covering-forest selector, the stored decomposition deterministically preserves high-score cut edges, and we derive a selector-agnostic conditional bound on high-score cut survival in composed training graphs. Across 19 homophilic, heterophilic, and large-scale node classification benchmarks against 17 baselines under the same edge budget, EDiS achieves the highest mean benchmark score (accuracy/ROC-AUC) and the lowest average rank and gap-to-best among ranked methods. Ablations show the clearest benefits of structural decomposition and epoch variation at tight edge budgets.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: EDiS generates sparse training graphs under a fixed edge budget.
Figure 2: Overview of the EDiS pipeline.
Method
Cora
CiteSeer
Amazon Photo
WikiCS
Amazon Comp.
Coauthor CS
PubMed
Chameleon
Squirrel
Minesweeper
Ref.
MLP (No graph)
60.14 ±2.62
57.00 ±1.13
92.16 ±0.24
73.10 ±0.19
86.99 ±0.39
95.11 ±0.05
69.82 ±1.86
36.59 ±3.32
39.77 ±1.59
51.34 ±0.77
Spanning Tree
80.86 ±1.17
70.50 ±0.64
92.46 ±0.12
75.05 ±0.23
89.76 ±0.30
94.68 ±0.14
80.40 ±0.99
34.72 ±2.81
36.93 ±1.58
70.73 ±0.21
Full GCN
84.26 ±0.66
72.50 ±0.36
95.95 ±0.14
80.57 ±0.06
93.70 ±0.31
95.61 ±0.36
80.76 ±0.55
44.67 ±3.84
44.79 ±1.82
97.49 ±0.18
EDiS-Full (Ours)
84.08 ±0.83
70.88 ±0.78
96.14 ±0.19
80.39 ±0.29
93.59 ±0.05
95.98 ±0.15
80.20 ±0.46
43.13 ±2.53
43.26 ±2.43
82.62 ±1.09
Topology-guided
Random
73.40 ±0.51
65.86 ±0.95
94.38 ±0.16
77.04 ±0.63
91.05 ±0.15
94.71 ±0.04
74.26 ±0.62
37.85 ±3.35
40.90 ±1.70
72.39 ±1.04
Rank Deg.
76.34 ±0.78
65.10 ±0.24
93.79 ±0.05
76.13 ±0.53
88.04 ±0.28
94.68 ±0.06
76.38 ±0.46
40.35 ±3.82
40.17 ±1.89
71.09 ±0.21
Table 1: Mean ± standard deviation (%) at retention ratio 0.30. The metric is accuracy, except ROC-AUC on Minesweeper, Questions, and Proteins. Best, second-best, and third-best results are shaded blue/bold, gray/underlined, and tan, respectively. AM and GM denote the arithmetic and geometric means across all 19 datasets. The first four reference rows are excluded from ranking.
ρ=0.3
ρ=0.5
Method
Score ↑
Rank ↓
Gap ↓
Score ↑
Rank ↓
Gap ↓
Topology-guided
Random
73.71
8.50
3.49
75.95
7.55
3.04
Local Degree
74.03
7.05
3.17
76.60
7.18
2.39
Rank Degree
70.95
10.24
6.26
73.36
9.87
5.63
Forest Fire
74.36
7.08
2.84
77.10
4.42
1.89
SCAN
72.77
8.79
4.43
75.71
8.08
3.28
Table 2: Summary of Table 1 over all 19 datasets at ρ=0.3 / 0.5 . Score is the mean of per-dataset accuracy or ROC-AUC. Rank and Gap are to the best ranked method per dataset, averaged; shading as in Table 1 .
Figure 3: Full-graph evaluation across regimes. MaxCF with cosine scores.
Figure 4: Decomposition and resampling across edge budgets.
Figure 5: Selector and score sensitivity. GCN at ρ=0.3 . Cells show the gap to the best mean per row and panel (pp, lower is better). Outlines mark defaults. N/A marks PubMed–MLP-score, which is not applicable.
Figure 6: Extraction depth at ρ=0.3 . Reported means with standard-deviation bars. Proteins uses ROC-AUC, others accuracy. Each panel has its own scale.
Figure 7: Backbone comparison within EDiS-Lite.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Symbol
Meaning
Graph and edge-budget
G=(V,E,X)
Attributed undirected graph ( V,X fixed; only the edge set varies below)
n=∣V∣ , m=∣E∣
Number of nodes and edges
ρ
Edge-retention ratio
B=⌈ρm⌉
Number of active edges per epoch
One-time edge decomposition
Appendix
Table 3: Main notation used in EDiS .
Method
Type
Edge budget
Reusable
Multi- struct.
Edge- disjoint
t -Spanner ( Peleg and Schäffer, 1989 )
Sparsification
✓
✓
✗
N/A
Forest Fire ( Leskovec and Faloutsos, 2006 )
Sampling
✗
✗
✗
N/A
SCAN ( Xu et al., 2007 )
Sparsification
✓
✓
✗
N/A
Spectral ( Spielman and Srivastava, 2008 )
Sparsification
✓
✓
✗
N/A
L-Spar ( Satuluri et al., 2011 )
Sparsification
✓
✓
✗
N/A
G-Spar ( Satuluri et al., 2011 )
Sparsification
✓
✓
✗
N/A
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of graph sampling, sparsification, and multi-structure training methods surveyed in Section 2 and Appendix B . Budget : exposes an explicit target edge count or ratio. Reusable : the structure is computed once and reused rather than resampled from scratch every step. Multi-struct. : training exposes the GNN to more than one structural view. Edge-disjoint : multiple structures, when used, share no edges. “N/A” marks a column that does not apply to a given method.
Figure 8: Structural selection and exact-budget composition in EDiS. Colors and line styles identify edge-disjoint subgraphs, extracted in order (1,2,3) and reused across epochs. The two illustrative epochs sample subgraph orders (3,1,2) and (1,2,3) , adding subgraphs until six edges are reached and trimming any excess uniformly from the lowest-weight subgraph. Samples may overlap and are not guaranteed to differ. These examples illustrate the rules, not predictive rankings.
Subgraph sampling reduces the training cost of large-scale graph neural networks, but sampling criteria may overlook the geometric roles of edges. We propose a resistance-curvature-guided sampling framework built on ERC-LG, a curvature approximation method for large-scale graphs. ERC-LG combines Johnson-Lindenstrauss projections with regularized multi-GPU batched conjugate gradient solvers, avoiding explicit Laplacian pseudoinverse computation and full embedding storage. The resulting curvature informs node- and edge-sampling probabilities for constructing GNN training subgraphs. Experiments show numerical agreement with pseudoinverse-based curvature and reduced runtime compared with CG-only computation. ERC-LG-based sampling variants achieve the highest mean accuracy on six of seven real-world datasets in downstream node classification.
Chaoqun Fei, Tinglve Zhou, Tianyong Hao +1
School of Artificial Intelligence, South China Normal University · School of Computer Science, South China Normal University · Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Graph neural networks (GNN) based on message passing are provably no more powerful than the one-dimensional Weisfeiler--Leman colour-refinement test (1-WL): two graphs it cannot tell apart receive identical representations, however deep or wide the network. A common remedy augments node or edge features with precomputed structural descriptors, most often counts of a fixed small subgraph such as triangles or longer cycles, but such counts require committing in advance to the size of the substructure counted, a choice usually made blind to the data. We study a descriptor that avoids this choice. The edge-girth of an edge is the length of a shortest cycle through it, and its multiplicity is the number of such shortest cycles; together they form a per-edge invariant that reports cycles of arbitrary length, computable exactly by a single breadth-first search per edge. Injected into a gated message-passing architecture, EGAGNN, it reaches a test MAE a factor three below the closest gated comparator on the ZINC-12k regression benchmark at 104k parameters; against bounded cycle-counting descriptors under the same architecture, it matches only a dictionary counting cycles up to length eight, using twice as many channels, while a dictionary capped at length four performs no better than no structural information at all. On graph discrimination we prove a matching limitation: on graphs where every edge sees the same number of shortest cycles of the same length, the descriptor becomes constant and any model built on it collapses back to the 1-WL bound. This holds without exception across all 400 pairs of the BREC benchmark: not one of the 90 such pairs is distinguished.
Lilian Marey, Charlotte Laclau
LTCI, Télécom Paris, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France
Mini-batch training of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) is fundamentally different from training on i.i.d. data: sampling a subgraph alters the topology and introduces boundary effects, leading prior work to develop structure-aware samplers that preserve local connectivity and reduce embedding variance. Surprisingly, we demonstrate that the simplest possible scheme, Random Node Sampling (RNS), training on the induced subgraph of uniformly sampled nodes, matches or outperforms full-graph training on 8 of 10 datasets at a fraction of the wall-clock time and memory. To explain this, we apply backward error analysis to graph mini-batch Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) and show that it implicitly minimizes the sampled loss plus a regularizer proportional to the mini-batch gradient variance, a quantity directly shaped by the sampler. Although RNS discards local structure, it produces mini-batches whose expected loss is closer to the full-graph loss, and whose per-batch gradients have lower variance, yielding a better implicit objective. Our analysis reframes the choice of graph sampler as a form of implicit regularization, and identifies RNS as a strong, theoretically grounded method for scalable GNN training.