be sequences of words corresponding to sentences.
For each GN block within a broader architecture, the edge and node outputs typically correspond
to lists of vectors or tensors, one per edge or node, and the global outputs correspond to a single
vector or tensor. This allows a GN's output to be passed to other deep learning building blocks
such as MLPs, CNNs, and RNNs.
The output of a GN block can also be tailored to the demands of the task. In particular,
Anedge-focused GN uses the edges as output, for example to make decisions about interactions
among entities (Kipf et al., 2018; Hamrick et al., 2018).
Anode-focused GN uses the nodes as output, for example to reason about physical systems
(Battaglia et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018b; Sanchez-Gonzalez et al., 2018).
Agraph-focused GN uses the globals as output, for example to predict the potential energy of
a physical system (Battaglia et al., 2016), the properties of a molecule (Gilmer et al., 2017),
or answers to questions about a visual scene (Santoro et al., 2017).
The nodes, edges, and global outputs can also be mixed-and-matched depending on the task. For


or answers to questions about a visual scene (Santoro et al., 2017).
The nodes, edges, and global outputs can also be mixed-and-matched depending on the task. For
example, Hamrick et al. (2018) used both the output edge and global attributes to compute a policy
over actions.
4.1.2 Graph structure
When dening how the input data will be represented as a graph, there are generally two scenarios:
rst, the input explicitly species the relational structure; and second, the relational structure must
be inferred or assumed. These are not hard distinctions, but extremes along a continuum.
Examples of data with more explicitly specied entities and relations include knowledge graphs,
social networks, parse trees, optimization problems, chemical graphs, road networks, and physical
systems with known interactions. Figures 2a-d illustrate how such data can be expressed as graphs.
Examples of data where the relational structure is not made explicit, and must be inferred or
assumed, include visual scenes, text corpora, programming language source code, and multi-agent
14
systems. In these types of settings, the data may be formatted as a set of entities without relations,
or even just a vector or tensor (e.g., an image). If the entities are not specied explicitly, they might

Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks

Summary:
Artificial intelligence (AI) has undergone a renaissance recently, making
major progress in key domains such as vision, language, control, and
decision-making. This has been due, in part, to cheap data and cheap compute
resources, which have fit the natural strengths of deep learning. However, many
defining characteristics of human intelligence, which developed under much
different pressures, remain out of reach for current approaches. In particular,
generalizing beyond one's experiences--a hallmark of human intelligence from
infancy--remains a formidable challenge for modern AI.
  The following is part position paper, part review, and part unification. We
argue that combinatorial generalization must be a top priority for AI to
achieve human-like abilities, and that structured representations and
computations are key to realizing this objective. Just as biology uses nature
and nurture cooperatively, we reject the false choice between
"hand-engineering" and "end-to-end" learning, and instead advocate for an
approach which benefits from their complementary strengths. We explore how
using relational inductive biases within deep learning architectures can
facilitate learning about entities, relations, and rules for composing them. We
present a new building block for the AI toolkit with a strong relational
inductive bias--the graph network--which generalizes and extends various
approaches for neural networks that operate on graphs, and provides a
straightforward interface for manipulating structured knowledge and producing
structured behaviors. We discuss how graph networks can support relational
reasoning and combinatorial generalization, laying the foundation for more
sophisticated, interpretable, and flexible patterns of reasoning. As a
companion to this paper, we have released an open-source software library for
building graph networks, with demonstrations of how to use them in practice.

Peter W. Battaglia
Jessica B. Hamrick
Victor Bapst
Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez
Vinicius Zambaldi
Mateusz Malinowski
Andrea Tacchetti
David Raposo
Adam Santoro
Ryan Faulkner
Caglar Gulcehre
Francis Song
Andrew Ballard
Justin Gilmer
George Dahl
Ashish Vaswani
Kelsey Allen
Charles Nash
Victoria Langston
Chris Dyer
Nicolas Heess
Daan Wierstra
Pushmeet Kohli
Matt Botvinick
Oriol Vinyals
Yujia Li
Razvan Pascanu


or even just a vector or tensor (e.g., an image). If the entities are not specied explicitly, they might
be assumed, for instance, by treating each word in a sentence (Vaswani et al., 2017) or each local
feature vector in a CNN's output feature map, as a node (Watters et al., 2017; Santoro et al., 2017;
Wang et al., 2018c) (Figures 2e-f). Or, it might be possible to use a separate learned mechanism to
infer entities from an unstructured signal (Luong et al., 2015; Mnih et al., 2014; Eslami et al., 2016;
van Steenkiste et al., 2018). If relations are not available, the simplest approach is to instantiate all
possible directed edges between entities (Figure 2f). This can be prohibitive for large numbers of
entities, however, because the number of possible edges grows quadratically with the number of
nodes. Thus developing more sophisticated ways of inferring sparse structure from unstructured
data (Kipf et al., 2018) is an important future direction.
4.2 Congurable within-block structure
The structure and functions within a GN block can be congured in dierent ways, which oers


4.2 Congurable within-block structure
The structure and functions within a GN block can be congured in dierent ways, which oers

exibility in what information is made available as inputs to its functions, as well as how output edge,
node, and global updates are produced. In particular, each in Equation 1 must be implemented
with some function, f, wheref's argument signature determines what information it requires as
input; in Figure 4, the incoming arrows to each depict whether u,V, andEare taken as inputs.
Hamrick et al. (2018) and Sanchez-Gonzalez et al. (2018) used the full GN block shown in Figure 4a.
Theirimplementations used neural networks (denoted NNe,NNv, and NNubelow, to indicate that
they are dierent functions with dierent parameters). Their implementations used elementwise
summation, but averages and max/min could also be used,
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(ek;vrk;vsk;u) = NNe([ek;vrk;vsk;u]) (2)
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi;u


v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi;u
= NNv
[ e0
i;vi;u]
u
 e0; v0;u:=fu
 e0; v0;u
= NNu
[ e0; v0;u]
e!v
E0
i:= =X
fk:rk=ige0
k
v!u
V0:= =X
iv0
i
e!u
E0:= =X
ke0
k
where [ x;y;z] indicates vector/tensor concatenation. For vector attributes, a MLP is often used for
, while for tensors such as image feature maps, CNNs may be more suitable.
Thefunctions can also use RNNs, which requires an additional hidden state as input and
output. Figure 4b shows a very simple version of a GN block with RNNs as functions: there is no
message-passing in this formulation, and this type of block might be used for recurrent smoothing of


message-passing in this formulation, and this type of block might be used for recurrent smoothing of
some dynamic graph states. Of course, RNNs as functions could also be used in a full GN block
(Figure 4a).
A variety of other architectures can be expressed in the GN framework, often as dierent
function choices and within-block congurations. The remaining sub-sections explore how a GN's
within-block structure can be congured in dierent ways, with examples of published work which
uses such congurations. See the Appendix for details.
15
(a) Full GN block
u0,u0hid


(c) Message-passing neural network
Edge blockNode blockGlobal blockV0


(e) Relation network
Edge blockNode blockGlobal blocku0


Figure 4: Dierent internal GN block congurations. See Section 3.2 for details on the notation,
and Section 4 for details about each variant. (a) A full GN predicts node, edge, and global output
attributes based on incoming node, edge, and global attributes. (b) An independent, recurrent
update block takes input and hidden graphs, and the functions are RNNs (Sanchez-Gonzalez
et al., 2018). (c) An MPNN (Gilmer et al., 2017) predicts node, edge, and global output attributes
based on incoming node, edge, and global attributes. Note that the global prediction does not
include aggregated edges. (d) A NLNN (Wang et al., 2018c) only predicts node output attributes.
(e) A relation network (Raposo et al., 2017; Santoro et al., 2017) only uses the edge predictions
to predict global attributes. (f) A Deep Set (Zaheer et al., 2017) bypasses the edge update and
predicts updated global attributes.
4.2.1 Message-passing neural network (MPNN)
Gilmer et al. (2017)'s MPNN generalizes a number of previous architectures and can be translated
naturally into the GN formalism. Following the MPNN paper's terminology (see Gilmer et al.


naturally into the GN formalism. Following the MPNN paper's terminology (see Gilmer et al.
(2017), pages 2-4):
the message function, Mt, plays the role of the GN's e, but does not take uas input,
elementwise summation is used for the GN's e!v,
the update function, Ut, plays the role of the GN's v,
16


5: NLNNs as GNs. A schematic showing how NLNNs (Wang et al., 2018c) are implemented


by theeande!vunder the GN framework. Typically, NLNNs assume that dierent regions of
an image (or words in a sentence) correspond to nodes in a fully connected graph, and the attention
mechanism denes a weighted sum over nodes during the aggregation step.
the readout function, R, plays the role of the GN's u, but does not take uorE0as input,
and thus an analog to the GN's e!uis not required;
dmaster serves a roughly similar purpose to the GN's u, but is dened as an extra node
connected to all others, and thus does not in
uence the edge and global updates directly. It
can then be represented in the GN's V.
Figure 4c shows how an MPNN is structured, according to the GN framework. For details and
various MPNN architectures, see the Appendix.
4.2.2 Non-local neural networks (NLNN)
Wang et al. (2018c)'s NLNN, which unies various \intra-/self-/vertex-/graph-attention" approaches
(Lin et al., 2017; Vaswani et al., 2017; Hoshen, 2017; Veli ckovi c et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2018),


(Lin et al., 2017; Vaswani et al., 2017; Hoshen, 2017; Veli ckovi c et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2018),
can also be translated into the GN formalism. The label \attention" refers to how the nodes are
updated: each node update is based on a weighted sum of (some function of) the node attributes of
its neighbors, where the weight between a node and one of its neighbors is computed by a scalar
pairwise function between their attributes (and then normalized across neighbors). The published
NLNN formalism does not explicitly include edges, and instead computes pairwise attention weights
between all nodes. But various NLNN-compliant models, such as the vertex attention interaction
network (Hoshen, 2017) and graph attention network (Veli ckovi c et al., 2018), are able to handle
explicit edges by eectively setting to zero the weights between nodes which do not share an edge.
As Figures 4d and 5 illustrate, the eis factored into the scalar pairwise-interaction function
which returns the unnormalized attention term, denoted e(vrk;vsk)=a0
k, and a vector-valued
non-pairwise term, denoted e(vsk)=b0


k, and a vector-valued
non-pairwise term, denoted e(vsk)=b0
k. In thee!vaggregation, the a0
kterms are normalized
across each receiver's edges, b0
k, and elementwise summed:
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(vrk;vsk) = ( e(vrk;vsk); e(vsk)) = (a0
k;b0
k) =e0
k
ve0
i;vi;u:=fv(e0
i)
e!v
E0
i:=1P
fk:rk=iga0
kX
fk:rk=iga0
kb0
k
In the NLNN paper's terminology (see Wang et al. (2018c), pages 2-4):
theirfplays the role of the above ,
17
theirgplays the role of the above .
This formulation may be helpful for focusing only on those interactions which are most relevant for
the downstream task, especially when the input entities were a set, from which a graph was formed
by adding all possible edges between them.


the downstream task, especially when the input entities were a set, from which a graph was formed
by adding all possible edges between them.
Vaswani et al. (2017)'s multi-headed self-attention mechanism adds an interesting feature, where
theeande!vare implemented by a parallel set of functions, whose results are concatenated
together as the nal step of e!v. This can be interpreted as using typed edges, where the dierent
types index into dierent ecomponent functions, analogous to Li et al. (2016).
For details and various NLNN architectures, see the Appendix.
4.2.3 Other graph network variants
The full GN (Equation 2) can be used to predict a full graph, or any subset of (u0;V0;E0), as
outlined in Section 4.1.1. For example, to predict a global property of a graph, V0andE0can just
be ignored. Similarly, if global, node, or edge attributes are unspecied in the inputs, those vectors
can be zero-length, i.e., not taken as explicit input arguments. The same idea applies for other GN
variants which do not use the full set of mapping ( ) and reduction ( ) functions. For instance,


variants which do not use the full set of mapping ( ) and reduction ( ) functions. For instance,
Interaction Networks (Battaglia et al., 2016; Watters et al., 2017) and the Neural Physics Engine
(Chang et al., 2017) use a full GN but for the absence of the global to update the edge properties
(see Appendix for details).
Various models, including CommNet (Sukhbaatar et al., 2016), structure2vec (Dai et al., 2016)
(in the version of (Dai et al., 2017)), and Gated Graph Sequence Neural Networks (Li et al., 2016)
have used a ewhich does not directly compute pairwise interactions, but instead ignore the receiver
node, operating only on the sender node and in some cases an edge attribute. This can be expressed
by implementations of ewith the following signatures, such as:
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(vsk)
ore(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=vsk+fe(ek)
ore(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(ek;vsk):
See the Appendix for further details.
Relation Networks (Raposo et al., 2017; Santoro et al., 2017) bypass the node update entirely


See the Appendix for further details.
Relation Networks (Raposo et al., 2017; Santoro et al., 2017) bypass the node update entirely
and predict the global output from pooled edge information directly (see also Figure 4e),
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(vrk;vsk) = NNe([vrk;vsk])
u
 e0; v0;u:=fu
 e0
= NNu
 e0
e!u
E0:= =X
ke0
k
Deep Sets (Zaheer et al., 2017) bypass the edges update completely and predict the global output
from pooled nodes information directly (Figure 4f),
v(ei;vi;u):=fv(vi;u) = NNv([vi;u])
u
 e0; v0;u:=fu
 v0
= NNu
 v0
v!u
V0:= =X
iv0
i
PointNet (Qi et al., 2017) use similar update rule, with a max-aggregation for v!uand a two-step
node update.
18
GM


Figure 6: (a) An example composing multiple GN blocks in sequence to form a GN \core". Here,
the GN blocks can use shared weights, or they could be independent. (b) The encode-process-decode
architecture, which is a common choice for composing GN blocks (see Section 4.3). Here, a GN
encodes an input graph, which is then processed by a GN core. The output of the core is decoded
by a third GN block into an output graph, whose nodes, edges, and/or global attributes would be
used for task-specic purposes. (c) The encode-process-decode architecture applied in a sequential
setting in which the core is also unrolled over time (potentially using a GRU or LSTM architecture),
in addition to being repeated within each time step. Here, merged lines indicate concatenation, and
split lines indicate copying.
4.3 Composable multi-block architectures
A key design principle of graph networks is constructing complex architectures by composing GN
blocks. We dened a GN block as always taking a graph comprised of edge, node, and global
elements as input, and returning a graph with the same constituent elements as output (simply
passing through the input elements to the output when those elements are not explicitly updated).


elements as input, and returning a graph with the same constituent elements as output (simply
passing through the input elements to the output when those elements are not explicitly updated).
This graph-to-graph input/output interface ensures that the output of one GN block can be passed
as input to another, even if their internal congurations are dierent, similar to the tensor-to-tensor
interface of the standard deep learning toolkit. In the most basic form, two GN blocks, GN1and
GN2, can be composed as GN1GN2by passing the output of the rst as input to the second:
G0= GN 2(GN 1(G)).
Arbitrary numbers of GN blocks can be composed, as show in Figure 6a. The blocks can
be unshared (dierent functions and/or parameters, analogous to layers of a CNN), GN16=
GN26=6=GNM, or shared (reused functions and parameters, analogous to an unrolled RNN),
GN1=GN2==GNM. The white box around the GNcorein Figure 6a represents Mrepeated
internal processing sub-steps, with either shared or unshared GN blocks. Shared congurations
are analogous to message-passing (Gilmer et al., 2017), where the same local update procedure is


are analogous to message-passing (Gilmer et al., 2017), where the same local update procedure is
applied iteratively to propagate information across the structure (Figure 7). If we exclude the global
u(which aggregates information from across the nodes and edges), the information that a node
has access to after msteps of propagation is determined by the set of nodes and edges that are at
mostmhops away. This can be interpreted as breaking down a complex computation into smaller
elementary steps. The steps can also be used to capture sequentiality in time. In our ball-spring
example, if each propagation step predicts the physical dynamics over one time step of duration  t,
then theMpropagation steps result in a total simulation time of, Mt.
A common architecture design is what we call the encode-process-decode conguration (Hamrick
et al. (2018); also see Figure 6ba): an input graph, Ginpis transformed into a latent representation,
G0, by an encoder, GNenc; a shared core block, GNcore, is applied Mtimes to return GM; and
nally an output graph, Gout, is decoded by GNdec. For example, in our running example, the
encoder might compute the initial forces and interaction energies between the balls, the core might
19
m=0


7: Example of message passing. Each row highlights the information that diuses through


the graph starting from a particular node. In the top row, the node of interest is in the upper
right; in the bottom row, the node of interest is in the bottom right. Shaded nodes indicate how far
information from the original node can travel in msteps of message passing; bolded edges indicate
which edges that information has the potential to travel across. Note that during the full message
passing procedure, this propagation of information happens simultaneously for all nodes and edges
in the graph (not just the two shown here).
apply an elementary dynamics update, and the decoder might read out the nal positions from the
updated graph state.
Similar to the encode-process-decode design, recurrent GN-based architectures can be built by
maintaining a hidden graph, Gt
hid, taking as input an observed graph, Gt
inp, and returning an output
graph,Gt
out, on each step (see Figure 6c). This type of architecture can be particularly useful for
predicting sequences of graphs, such as predicting the trajectory of a dynamical system over time
(e.g. Sanchez-Gonzalez et al., 2018). The encoded graph, output by GNenc, must have the same
structure as Gt
hid, and they can be easily combined by concatenating their corresponding ek,vi,


structure as Gt
hid, and they can be easily combined by concatenating their corresponding ek,vi,
anduvectors (where the upward arrow merges into the left-hand horizontal arrow in Figure 6c),
before being passed to GNcore. For the output, the Gt
hidis copied (where the right-hand horizontal
arrow splits into the downward arrow in Figure 6c) and decoded by GNdec. This design reuses GN
blocks in several ways: GNenc,GNdec, and GNcoreare shared across each step, t; and within each
step, GN coremay perform multiple shared sub-steps.
Various other techniques for designing GN-based architectures can be useful. Graph skip
connections, for example, would concatenate a GN block's input graph, Gm, with its output graph,
Gm+1, before proceeding to further computations. Merging and smoothing input and hidden graph
information, as in Figure 6c, can use LSTM- or GRU-style gating schemes, instead of simple
concatenation (Li et al., 2016). Or distinct, recurrent GN blocks (e.g. Figure 4b) can be composed
before and/or after other GN blocks, to improve stability in the representations over multiple
propagation steps (Sanchez-Gonzalez et al., 2018).


before and/or after other GN blocks, to improve stability in the representations over multiple
propagation steps (Sanchez-Gonzalez et al., 2018).
4.4 Implementing graph networks in code
Similar to CNNs (see Figure 1), which are naturally parallelizable (e.g. on GPUs), GNs have a
natural parallel structure: since the eandvfunctions in Equation 1 are shared over the edges
and nodes, respectively, they can be computed in parallel. In practice, this means that with respect
20
Box 4: Graph Nets open-source software library: github.com/deepmind/graph nets
We have released an open-source library for building GNs in Tensor
ow/Sonnet. It includes
demos of how to create, manipulate, and train GNs to reason about graph-structured data, on
a shortest path-nding task, a sorting task, and a physical prediction task. Each demo uses the
same GN architecture, which highlights the
exibility of the approach.
Shortest path demo: tinyurl.com/gn-shortest-path-demo
This demo creates random graphs, and trains a GN to label the nodes and edges on the shortest
path between any two nodes. Over a sequence of message-passing steps (as depicted by each


This demo creates random graphs, and trains a GN to label the nodes and edges on the shortest
path between any two nodes. Over a sequence of message-passing steps (as depicted by each
step's plot), the model renes its prediction of the shortest path.
Sort demo: tinyurl.com/gn-sort-demo
This demo creates lists of random numbers, and trains a GN to sort the list. After a sequence
of message-passing steps, the model makes an accurate prediction of which elements (columns
in the gure) come next after each other (rows).
Physics demo: tinyurl.com/gn-physics-demo
This demo creates random mass-spring physical systems, and trains a GN to predict the state of
the system on the next timestep. The model's next-step predictions can be fed back in as input
to create a rollout of a future trajectory. Each subplot below shows the true and predicted
mass-spring system states over 50 timesteps. This is similar to the model and experiments in
(Battaglia et al., 2016)'s \interaction networks".
21
toeandv, the nodes and edges can be treated like the batch dimension in typical mini-batch
training regimes. Moreover, several graphs can be naturally batched together by treating them as


training regimes. Moreover, several graphs can be naturally batched together by treating them as
disjoint components of a larger graph. With some additional bookkeeping, this allows batching
together the computations made on several independent graphs.
Reusingeandvalso improves GNs' sample eciency. Again, analogous to a convolutional
kernel, the number of samples which are used to optimize a GN's eandvfunctions is the number
of edges and nodes, respectively, across all training graphs. For example, in the balls example
from Sec. 3.2, a scene with four balls which are all connected by springs will provide twelve (4 3)
examples of the contact interaction between them.
We have released an open-source software library for building GNs, which can be found here:
github.com/deepmind/graph nets . See Box 4 for an overview.
4.5 Summary
In this section, we have discussed the design principles behind graph networks:
exible representations, congurable within-block structure, and composable multi-block architectures. These three
design principles combine in our framework which is extremely
exible and applicable to a wide range
of domains ranging from perception, language, and symbolic reasoning. And, as we will see in the


design principles combine in our framework which is extremely
exible and applicable to a wide range
of domains ranging from perception, language, and symbolic reasoning. And, as we will see in the
remainder of this paper, the strong relational inductive bias possessed by graph networks supports
combinatorial generalization, thus making it a powerful tool both in terms of implementation and
theory.
5 Discussion
In this paper, we analyzed the extent to which relational inductive bias exists in deep learning
architectures like MLPs, CNNs, and RNNs, and concluded that while CNNs and RNNs do contain
relational inductive biases, they cannot naturally handle more structured representations such as
sets or graphs. We advocated for building stronger relational inductive biases into deep learning
architectures by highlighting an underused deep learning building block called a graph network ,
which performs computations over graph-structured data. Our graph network framework unies
existing approaches that also operate over graphs, and provides a straightforward interface for
assembling graph networks into complex, sophisticated architectures.
5.1 Combinatorial generalization in graph networks
The structure of GNs naturally supports combinatorial generalization because they do not perform
computations strictly at the system level, but also apply shared computations across the entities and


The structure of GNs naturally supports combinatorial generalization because they do not perform
computations strictly at the system level, but also apply shared computations across the entities and
across the relations as well. This allows never-before-seen systems to be reasoned about, because
they are built from familiar components, in a way that re
ects von Humboldt's \innite use of nite
means" (Humboldt, 1836; Chomsky, 1965).
A number of studies have explored GNs' capacity for combinatorial generalization. Battaglia
et al. (2016) found that GNs trained to make one-step physical state predictions could simulate
thousands of future time steps, and also exhibit accurate zero-shot transfer to physical systems
with double, or half, the number of entities experienced during training. Sanchez-Gonzalez et al.
(2018) found similar results in more complex physical control settings, including that GNs trained as
forward models on simulated multi-joint agents could generalize to agents with new numbers of joints.
Hamrick et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2018b) each found that GN-based decision-making policies
could transfer to novel numbers of entities as well. In combinatorial optimization problems, Bello
22


could transfer to novel numbers of entities as well. In combinatorial optimization problems, Bello
22
et al. (2016); Nowak et al. (2017); Dai et al. (2017); Kool and Welling (2018) showed that GNs could
generalize well to problems of much dierent sizes than they had been trained on. Similarly, Toyer
et al. (2017) showed generalization to dierent sizes of planning problems, and Hamilton et al. (2017)
showed generalization to producing useful node embeddings for previously unseen data. On boolean
SAT problems, Selsam et al. (2018) demonstrated generalization both to dierent problem sizes and
across problem distributions: their model retained good performance upon strongly modifying the
distribution of the input graphs and its typical local structure.
These striking examples of combinatorial generalization are not entirely surprising, given GNs'
entity- and relation-centric organization, but nonetheless provide important support for the view
that embracing explicit structure and
exible learning is a viable approach toward realizing better
sample eciency and generalization in modern AI.
5.2 Limitations of graph networks
One limitation of GNs' and MPNNs' form of learned message-passing (Shervashidze et al., 2011)


5.2 Limitations of graph networks
One limitation of GNs' and MPNNs' form of learned message-passing (Shervashidze et al., 2011)
is that it cannot be guaranteed to solve some classes of problems, such as discriminating between
certain non-isomorphic graphs. Kondor et al. (2018) suggested that covariance7(Cohen and Welling,
2016; Kondor and Trivedi, 2018), rather than invariance to permutations of the nodes and edges
is preferable, and proposed \covariant compositional networks" which can preserve structural
information, and allow it to be ignored only if desired.
More generally, while graphs are a powerful way of representing structure information, they
have limits. For example, notions like recursion, control
ow, and conditional iteration are not
straightforward to represent with graphs, and, minimally, require additional assumptions (e.g., in
interpreting abstract syntax trees). Programs and more \computer-like" processing can oer greater
representational and computational expressivity with respect to these notions, and some have argued
they are an important component of human cognition (Tenenbaum et al., 2011; Lake et al., 2015;
Goodman et al., 2015).
5.3 Open questions
Although we are excited about the potential impacts that graph networks can have, we caution that


Goodman et al., 2015).
5.3 Open questions
Although we are excited about the potential impacts that graph networks can have, we caution that
these models are only one step forward. Realizing the full potential of graph networks will likely be
far more challenging than organizing their behavior under one framework, and indeed, there are a
number of unanswered questions regarding the best ways to use graph networks.
One pressing question is: where do the graphs come from that graph networks operate over?
One of the hallmarks of deep learning has been its ability to perform complex computations over
raw sensory data, such as images and text, yet it is unclear the best ways to convert sensory data
into more structured representations like graphs. One approach (which we have already discussed)
assumes a fully connected graph structure between spatial or linguistic entities, such as in the
literature on self-attention (Vaswani et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018c). However, such representations
may not correspond exactly to the \true" entities (e.g., convolutional features do not directly
correspond to objects in a scene). Moreover, many underlying graph structures are much more
sparse than a fully connected graph, and it is an open question how to induce this sparsity. Several
lines of active research are exploring these issues (Watters et al., 2017; van Steenkiste et al., 2018;


lines of active research are exploring these issues (Watters et al., 2017; van Steenkiste et al., 2018;
Li et al., 2018; Kipf et al., 2018) but as of yet there is no single method which can reliably extract
discrete entities from sensory data. Developing such a method is an exciting challenge for future
7Covariance means, roughly, that the activations vary in a predictable way as a function of the ordering of the
incoming edges.
23
research, and once solved will likely open the door for much more powerful and
exible reasoning
algorithms.
A related question is how to adaptively modify graph structures during the course of computation.
For example, if an object fractures into multiple pieces, a node representing that object also ought
to split into multiple nodes. Similarly, it might be useful to only represent edges between objects
that are in contact, thus requiring the ability to add or remove edges depending on context. The
question of how to support this type of adaptivity is also actively being researched, and in particular,
some of the methods used for identifying the underlying structure of a graph may be applicable (e.g.
Li et al., 2018; Kipf et al., 2018).
Human cognition makes the strong assumption that the world is composed of objects and


Li et al., 2018; Kipf et al., 2018).
Human cognition makes the strong assumption that the world is composed of objects and
relations (Spelke and Kinzler, 2007), and because GNs make a similar assumption, their behavior
tends to be more interpretable. The entities and relations that GNs operate over often correspond
to things that humans understand (such as physical objects), thus supporting more interpretable
analysis and visualization (e.g., as in Selsam et al., 2018). An interesting direction for future work
is to further explore the interpretability of the behavior of graph networks.
5.4 Integrative approaches for learning and structure
While our focus here has been on graphs, one takeaway from this paper is less about graphs
themselves and more about the approach of blending powerful deep learning approaches with
structured representations. We are excited by related approaches which have explored this idea for
other types of structured representations and computations, such as linguistic trees (Socher et al.,
2011a,b, 2012, 2013; Tai et al., 2015; Andreas et al., 2016), partial tree traversals in a state-action
graph (Guez et al., 2018; Farquhar et al., 2018), hierarchical action policies (Andreas et al., 2017),


graph (Guez et al., 2018; Farquhar et al., 2018), hierarchical action policies (Andreas et al., 2017),
multi-agent communication channels (Foerster et al., 2016), \capsules" (Sabour et al., 2017), and
programs (Parisotto et al., 2017). Other methods have attempted to capture dierent types of
structure by mimicking key hardware and software components in computers and how they transfer
information between each other, such as persistent slotted storage, registers, memory I/O controllers,
stacks, and queues (e.g. Dyer et al., 2015; Grefenstette et al., 2015; Joulin and Mikolov, 2015;
Sukhbaatar et al., 2015; Kurach et al., 2016; Graves et al., 2016).
5.5 Conclusion
Recent advances in AI, propelled by deep learning, have been transformative across many important
domains. Despite this, a vast gap between human and machine intelligence remains, especially with
respect to ecient, generalizable learning. We argue for making combinatorial generalization a top
priority for AI, and advocate for embracing integrative approaches which draw on ideas from human
cognition, traditional computer science, standard engineering practice, and modern deep learning.
Here we explored
exible learning-based approaches which implement strong relational inductive


cognition, traditional computer science, standard engineering practice, and modern deep learning.
Here we explored
exible learning-based approaches which implement strong relational inductive
biases to capitalize on explicitly structured representations and computations, and presented a
framework called graph networks , which generalize and extend various recent approaches for neural
networks applied to graphs. Graph networks are designed to promote building complex architectures
using customizable graph-to-graph building blocks, and their relational inductive biases promote
combinatorial generalization and improved sample eciency over other standard machine learning
building blocks.
Despite their benets and potential, however, learnable models which operate on graphs are
only a stepping stone on the path toward human-like intelligence. We are optimistic about a
number of other relevant, and perhaps underappreciated, research directions, including marrying
24
learning-based approaches with programs (Ritchie et al., 2016; Andreas et al., 2016; Gaunt et al.,
2016; Evans and Grefenstette, 2018; Evans et al., 2018), developing model-based approaches with an
emphasis on abstraction (Kansky et al., 2017; Konidaris et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Hay et al.,
2018), investing more heavily in meta-learning (Wang et al., 2016, 2018a; Finn et al., 2017), and


2018), investing more heavily in meta-learning (Wang et al., 2016, 2018a; Finn et al., 2017), and
exploring multi-agent learning and interaction as a key catalyst for advanced intelligence (Nowak,
2006; Ohtsuki et al., 2006). These directions each involve rich notions of entities, relations, and
combinatorial generalization, and can potentially benet, and benet from, greater interaction with
approaches for learning relational reasoning over explicitly structured representations.
Acknowledgements
We thank Tobias Pfa, Danilo Rezende, Nando de Freitas, Murray Shanahan, Thore Graepel, John
Jumper, Demis Hassabis, and the broader DeepMind and Google communities for valuable feedback
and support.
References
Allamanis, M., Brockschmidt, M., and Khademi, M. (2018). Learning to represent programs with
graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Allamanis, M., Chanthirasegaran, P., Kohli, P., and Sutton, C. (2017). Learning continuous
semantic representations of symbolic expressions. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Machine Learning (ICML) .
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review , 89(4):369.


on Machine Learning (ICML) .
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review , 89(4):369.
Andreas, J., Klein, D., and Levine, S. (2017). Modular multitask reinforcement learning with policy
sketches. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) .
Andreas, J., Rohrbach, M., Darrell, T., and Klein, D. (2016). Neural module networks. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 39{48.
Ba, J. L., Kiros, J. R., and Hinton, G. E. (2016). Layer normalization. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1607.06450 .
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., and Bengio, Y. (2015). Neural machine translation by jointly learning to
align and translate. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .
Battaglia, P., Pascanu, R., Lai, M., Rezende, D. J., et al. (2016). Interaction networks for learning
about objects, relations and physics. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ,
pages 4502{4510.


about objects, relations and physics. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ,
pages 4502{4510.
Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2013). Simulation as an engine of physical
scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110(45):18327{18332.
Bello, I., Pham, H., Le, Q. V., Norouzi, M., and Bengio, S. (2016). Neural combinatorial optimization
with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09940 .
Bobrow, D. G. and Hinton, G. E., editors (1990). Articial Intelligence , volume 46. Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd., Essex, UK. Special Issue 1-2: On Connectionist Symbol Processing.
25
Bojchevski, A., Shchur, O., Z ugner, D., and G unnemann, S. (2018). Netgan: Generating graphs via
random walks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00816 .
Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., and Yakhnenko, O. (2013). Translating


Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., and Yakhnenko, O. (2013). Translating
embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems , pages 2787{2795.
Botvinick, M. M. (2008). Hierarchical models of behavior and prefrontal function. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences , 12(5):201{208.
Bronstein, M. M., Bruna, J., LeCun, Y., Szlam, A., and Vandergheynst, P. (2017). Geometric deep
learning: going beyond euclidean data. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 34(4):18{42.
Bruna, J., Zaremba, W., Szlam, A., and LeCun, Y. (2014). Spectral networks and locally connected
networks on graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .
Chang, M. B., Ullman, T., Torralba, A., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). A compositional objectbased approach to learning physical dynamics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Learning Representations (ICLR) .


Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Chen, X., Li, L., Fei-Fei, L., and Gupta, A. (2018a). Iterative visual reasoning beyond convolutions.
InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) .
Chen, X., Liu, C., and Song, D. (2018b). Tree-to-tree neural networks for program translation. In
Workshops of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Cho, K., Van Merri enboer, B., Gulcehre, C., Bahdanau, D., Bougares, F., Schwenk, H., and Bengio,
Y. (2014). Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine
translation. In Proceeding of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
(EMNLP) .
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures . Mouton & Co.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax . MIT Press.
Cohen, T. and Welling, M. (2016). Group equivariant convolutional networks. In International
Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2990{2999.


Cohen, T. and Welling, M. (2016). Group equivariant convolutional networks. In International
Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2990{2999.
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The Nature of Explanation . Cambridge University Press.
Cui, Z., Henrickson, K., Ke, R., and Wang, Y. (2018). High-order graph convolutional recurrent
neural network: A deep learning framework for network-scale trac learning and forecasting.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07007 .
Dai, H., Dai, B., and Song, L. (2016). Discriminative embeddings of latent variable models for
structured data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) .
Dai, H., Khalil, E. B., Zhang, Y., Dilkina, B., and Song, L. (2017). Learning combinatorial
optimization algorithms over graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems .
De Cao, N. and Kipf, T. (2018). MolGAN: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11973 .
26


arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11973 .
26
Deerrard, M., Bresson, X., and Vandergheynst, P. (2016). Convolutional neural networks on graphs
with fast localized spectral ltering. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages
3844{3852.
Denil, M., Colmenarejo, S. G., Cabi, S., Saxton, D., and de Freitas, N. (2017). Programmable
agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06383 .
Devlin, J., Uesato, J., Singh, R., and Kohli, P. (2017). Semantic code repair using neuro-symbolic
transformation networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11054 .
Duvenaud, D. K., Maclaurin, D., Iparraguirre, J., Bombarell, R., Hirzel, T., Aspuru-Guzik, A., and
Adams, R. P. (2015). Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular ngerprints. In
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2224{2232.


Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2224{2232.
Dyer, C., Ballesteros, M., Ling, W., Matthews, A., and Smith, N. A. (2015). Transition-based
dependency parsing with stack long short-term memory. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of
the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) .
D zeroski, S., De Raedt, L., and Driessens, K. (2001). Relational reinforcement learning. Machine
Learning , 43(1-2):7{52.
Edwards, H. and Storkey, A. (2016). Towards a neural statistician. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.02185 .
Eliasmith, C. (2013). How to build a brain: A neural architecture for biological cognition . Oxford
University Press.
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science , 14(2):179{211.
Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical
structure. Machine Learning , 7(2-3):195{225.


Elman, J. L. (1991). Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical
structure. Machine Learning , 7(2-3):195{225.
Eslami, S. A., Heess, N., Weber, T., Tassa, Y., Szepesvari, D., Hinton, G. E., et al. (2016). Attend,
infer, repeat: Fast scene understanding with generative models. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems , pages 3225{3233.
Evans, R. and Grefenstette, E. (2018). Learning explanatory rules from noisy data. Journal of
Articial Intelligence Research , 61:1{64.
Evans, R., Saxton, D., Amos, D., Kohli, P., and Grefenstette, E. (2018). Can neural networks
understand logical entailment? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning
Representations (ICLR) .
Farquhar, G., Rockt aschel, T., Igl, M., and Whiteson, S. (2018). TreeQN and ATreeC: Dierentiable
tree planning for deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Learning Representations (ICLR) .


tree planning for deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Finn, C., Abbeel, P., and Levine, S. (2017). Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of
deep networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03400 .
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought . Harvard University Press.
Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical
analysis. Cognition , 28(1-2):3{71.
27
Foerster, J., Assael, I. A., de Freitas, N., and Whiteson, S. (2016). Learning to communicate with
deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ,
pages 2137{2145.
Fukushima, K. (1980). Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of
pattern recognition unaected by shift in position. Biological Cybernetics , 36:193{202.
Garcia, V. and Bruna, J. (2018). Few-shot learning with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .


Garcia, V. and Bruna, J. (2018). Few-shot learning with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Garc a-Dur an, A. and Niepert, M. (2017). Learning graph representations with embedding propagation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.03059 .
Garnelo, M., Arulkumaran, K., and Shanahan, M. (2016). Towards deep symbolic reinforcement
learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05518 .
Gaunt, A. L., Brockschmidt, M., Kushman, N., and Tarlow, D. (2016). Dierentiable programs
with neural libraries. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02109 .
Geman, S., Bienenstock, E., and Doursat, R. (1992). Neural networks and the bias/variance dilemma.
Neural Computation , 4(1):1{58.
Gentner, D. and Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American
Psychologist , 52(1):45.
Getoor, L. and Taskar, B. (2007). Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning . MIT press.


Psychologist , 52(1):45.
Getoor, L. and Taskar, B. (2007). Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning . MIT press.
Ghahramani, Z. (2015). Probabilistic machine learning and articial intelligence. Nature ,
521(7553):452.
Gilmer, J., Schoenholz, S. S., Riley, P. F., Vinyals, O., and Dahl, G. E. (2017). Neural message
passing for quantum chemistry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.01212 .
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. (2016). Deep Learning . MIT Press.
Goodman, N. (1955). The new riddle of induction. In Fact, Fiction, and Forecast , pages 59{83.
Harvard University Press.
Goodman, N., Mansinghka, V., Roy, D. M., Bonawitz, K., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2012). Church: a
language for generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.3255 .
Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Gerstenberg, T. (2015). Concepts in a probabilistic


Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Gerstenberg, T. (2015). Concepts in a probabilistic
language of thought. In Margolis, E. and Laurence, S., editors, The Conceptual Mind: New
Directions in the Study of Concepts . MIT Press.
Goodwin, G. P. and Johnson-Laird, P. (2005). Reasoning about relations. Psychological Review ,
112(2):468.
Gori, M., Monfardini, G., and Scarselli, F. (2005). A new model for learning in graph domains. In
Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , volume 2, pages
729{734. IEEE.
Graves, A., Wayne, G., Reynolds, M., Harley, T., Danihelka, I., Grabska-Barwi nska, A., Colmenarejo,
S. G., Grefenstette, E., Ramalho, T., Agapiou, J., et al. (2016). Hybrid computing using a neural
network with dynamic external memory. Nature , 538(7626):471.
28
Grefenstette, E., Hermann, K. M., Suleyman, M., and Blunsom, P. (2015). Learning to transduce


28
Grefenstette, E., Hermann, K. M., Suleyman, M., and Blunsom, P. (2015). Learning to transduce
with unbounded memory. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1828{1836.
Griths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010). Probabilistic
models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences ,
14(8):357{364.
Grover, A. and Leskovec, J. (2016). node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings
of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining ,
pages 855{864. ACM.
Guez, A., Weber, T., Antonoglou, I., Simonyan, K., Vinyals, O., Wierstra, D., Munos, R., and
Silver, D. (2018). Learning to search with MCTSnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04697 .


Silver, D. (2018). Learning to search with MCTSnets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04697 .
Gulcehre, C., Denil, M., Malinowski, M., Razavi, A., Pascanu, R., Hermann, K. M., Battaglia, P.,
Bapst, V., Raposo, D., Santoro, A., and de Freitas, N. (2018). Hyperbolic attention networks.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09786 .
Hamaguchi, T., Oiwa, H., Shimbo, M., and Matsumoto, Y. (2017). Knowledge transfer for out-ofknowledge-base entities: A graph neural network approach. In Proceedings of the International
Joint Conference on Articial Intelligence (IJCAI) .
Hamilton, W., Ying, Z., and Leskovec, J. (2017). Inductive representation learning on large graphs.
InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1025{1035.
Hamrick, J., Allen, K., Bapst, V., Zhu, T., McKee, K., Tenenbaum, J., and Battaglia, P. (2018).
Relational inductive bias for physical construction in humans and machines. In Proceedings of the


Relational inductive bias for physical construction in humans and machines. In Proceedings of the
40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society .
Hamrick, J. B., Ballard, A. J., Pascanu, R., Vinyals, O., Heess, N., and Battaglia, P. W. (2017).
Metacontrol for adaptive imagination-based optimization. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Hartford, J., Graham, D. R., Leyton-Brown, K., and Ravanbakhsh, S. (2018). Deep models of
interactions across sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02879 .
Hay, N., Stark, M., Schlegel, A., Wendelken, C., Park, D., Purdy, E., Silver, T., Phoenix, D. S.,
and George, D. (2018). Behavior is everything{towards representing concepts with sensorimotor
contingencies. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Articial Intelligence (AAAI) .
Hena, M., Bruna, J., and LeCun, Y. (2015). Deep convolutional networks on graph-structured
data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05163 .


data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.05163 .
Hinton, G. E. (1990). Mapping part-whole hierarchies into connectionist networks. Articial
Intelligence , 46(1-2):47{75.
Hjort, N. L., Holmes, C., M uller, P., and Walker, S. G. (2010). Bayesian Nonparametrics . Cambridge
University Press.
Hoshen, Y. (2017). Vain: Attentional multi-agent predictive modeling. In Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems , pages 2698{2708.
Hu, H., Gu, J., Zhang, Z., Dai, J., and Wei, Y. (2017). Relation networks for object detection.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.11575 .
29
Hudson, D. A. and Manning, C. D. (2018). Compositional attention networks for machine reasoning.
InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Humboldt, W. (1999/1836). On Language: On the diversity of human language construction and its
in
uence on the mental development of the human species . Cambridge University Press.


in
uence on the mental development of the human species . Cambridge University Press.
Hummel, J. E. and Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference
and generalization. Psychological Review , 110(2):220.
Ioe, S. and Szegedy, C. (2015). Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing
internal covariate shift. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on International
Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) .
Johnson, D. D. (2017). Learning graphical state transitions. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Joulin, A. and Mikolov, T. (2015). Inferring algorithmic patterns with stack-augmented recurrent
nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 190{198.
Kansky, K., Silver, T., M ely, D. A., Eldawy, M., L azaro-Gredilla, M., Lou, X., Dorfman, N., Sidor,
S., Phoenix, S., and George, D. (2017). Schema networks: Zero-shot transfer with a generative
causal model of intuitive physics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine
Learning (ICML) .


causal model of intuitive physics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine
Learning (ICML) .
Kearnes, S., McCloskey, K., Berndl, M., Pande, V., and Riley, P. (2016). Molecular graph
convolutions: moving beyond ngerprints. Journal of computer-aided molecular design , 30(8):595{
608.
Kemp, C. and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2008). The discovery of structural form. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences , 105(31):10687{10692.
Kipf, T., Fetaya, E., Wang, K.-C., Welling, M., and Zemel, R. (2018). Neural relational inference
for interacting systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning
(ICML) .
Kipf, T. N. and Welling, M. (2017). Semi-supervised classication with graph convolutional networks.
InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Koller, D. and Friedman, N. (2009). Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques .
MIT press.


Koller, D. and Friedman, N. (2009). Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques .
MIT press.
Kondor, R., Son, H. T., Pan, H., Anderson, B., and Trivedi, S. (2018). Covariant compositional
networks for learning graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02144 .
Kondor, R. and Trivedi, S. (2018). On the generalization of equivariance and convolution in neural
networks to the action of compact groups. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03690 .
Konidaris, G., Kaelbling, L. P., and Lozano-Perez, T. (2018). From skills to symbols: Learning
symbolic representations for abstract high-level planning. Journal of Articial Intelligence
Research , 61:215{289.
Kool, W. and Welling, M. (2018). Attention solves your TSP. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08475 .
30
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. (2012). ImageNet classication with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1097{1105.


Kurach, K., Andrychowicz, M., and Sutskever, I. (2016). Neural random-access machines. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Lake, B. M. and Baroni, M. (2018). Still not systematic after all these years: On the compositional
skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference
on Machine Learning (ICML) .
Lake, B. M., Salakhutdinov, R., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Human-level concept learning
through probabilistic program induction. Science , 350(6266):1332{1338.
Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Gershman, S. J. (2017). Building machines that
learn and think like people. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 40.
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., and Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature , 521(7553):436.
LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Henderson, D., Howard, R. E., Hubbard, W., and Jackel,


LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Henderson, D., Howard, R. E., Hubbard, W., and Jackel,
L. D. (1989). Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural computation ,
1(4):541{551.
Li, Y., Tarlow, D., Brockschmidt, M., and Zemel, R. (2016). Gated graph sequence neural networks.
InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Li, Y., Vinyals, O., Dyer, C., Pascanu, R., and Battaglia, P. (2018). Learning deep generative
models of graphs. In Workshops at the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .
Li, Y., Yu, R., Shahabi, C., and Liu, Y. (2017). Diusion convolutional recurrent neural network:
Data-driven trac forecasting. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.01926 .
Lin, Z., Feng, M., Santos, C. N. d., Yu, M., Xiang, B., Zhou, B., and Bengio, Y. (2017). A structured
self-attentive sentence embedding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning


self-attentive sentence embedding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning
Representations (ICLR) .
Liu, H., Simonyan, K., Vinyals, O., Fernando, C., and Kavukcuoglu, K. (2018). Hierarchical
representations for ecient architecture search. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Luong, M.-T., Pham, H., and Manning, C. D. (2015). Eective approaches to attention-based neural
machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04025 .
Marcus, G. (2001). The algebraic mind.
Marcus, G. (2018a). Deep learning: A critical appraisal. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00631 .
Marcus, G. (2018b). Innateness, alphazero, and articial intelligence. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1801.05667 .
McClelland, J. L. (1994). The interaction of nature and nurture in development: A parallel
distributed processing perspective. International perspectives on psychological science , 1:57{88.
31
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context eects


31
McClelland, J. L. and Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context eects
in letter perception: I. an account of basic ndings. Psychological Review , 88(5):375.
Mikolov, T., Yih, W.-t., and Zweig, G. (2013). Linguistic regularities in continuous space word
representations. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the
Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 746{751.
Mitchell, T. M. (1980). The need for biases in learning generalizations . Department of Computer
Science, Laboratory for Computer Science Research, Rutgers Univ. New Jersey.
Mnih, V., Heess, N., Graves, A., et al. (2014). Recurrent models of visual attention. In Advances in
neural information processing systems , pages 2204{2212.
Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A.,
Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., et al. (2015). Human-level control through deep


Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., et al. (2015). Human-level control through deep
reinforcement learning. Nature , 518(7540):529.
Monti, F., Boscaini, D., Masci, J., Rodola, E., Svoboda, J., and Bronstein, M. M. (2017). Geometric
deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model cnns. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) .
Morav c k, M., Schmid, M., Burch, N., Lis y, V., Morrill, D., Bard, N., Davis, T., Waugh, K.,
Johanson, M., and Bowling, M. (2017). Deepstack: Expert-level articial intelligence in heads-up
no-limit poker. Science , 356(6337):508{513.
Narayanan, A., Chandramohan, M., Chen, L., Liu, Y., and Saminathan, S. (2016). subgraph2vec:
Learning distributed representations of rooted sub-graphs from large graphs. In Workshops at the
20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining .


Learning distributed representations of rooted sub-graphs from large graphs. In Workshops at the
20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining .
Narayanan, A., Chandramohan, M., Venkatesan, R., Chen, L., Liu, Y., and Jaiswal, S. (2017).
graph2vec: Learning distributed representations of graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.05005 .
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.
Cognitive Psychology , 9(3):353{383.
Niepert, M., Ahmed, M., and Kutzkov, K. (2016). Learning convolutional neural networks for
graphs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages
2014{2023.
Nilsson, N. J. and Fikes, R. E. (1970). Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving
to problem solving. Technical report, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA Articial Intelligence
Center.
Nowak, A., Villar, S., Bandeira, A. S., and Bruna, J. (2017). A note on learning algorithms for
quadratic assignment with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the Principled Approaches to


quadratic assignment with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the Principled Approaches to
Deep Learning Workshop (PADL) at the International Conference of Machine Learning (ICML) .
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. science , 314(5805):1560{1563.
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., and Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution
of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature , 441(7092):502.
32
O~ noro-Rubio, D., Niepert, M., Garc a-Dur an, A., Gonz alez-S anchez, R., and L opez-Sastre,
R. J. (2017). Representation learning for visual-relational knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1709.02314 .
Parisotto, E., Mohamed, A.-r., Singh, R., Li, L., Zhou, D., and Kohli, P. (2017). Neuro-symbolic
program synthesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .


program synthesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .
Pascanu, R., Li, Y., Vinyals, O., Heess, N., Buesing, L., Racani ere, S., Reichert, D., Weber, T.,
Wierstra, D., and Battaglia, P. (2017). Learning model-based planning from scratch. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1707.06170 .
Pearl, J. (1986). Fusion, propagation, and structuring in belief networks. Articial intelligence ,
29(3):241{288.
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference.
Morgan Kaufmann.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference . Cambridge University Press, New
York, NY, USA, 2nd edition.
Pearl, J. (2018). Theoretical impediments to machine learning with seven sparks from the causal
revolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.04016 .
Pennington, J., Socher, R., and Manning, C. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation.
InProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) ,


InProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) ,
pages 1532{1543.
Perozzi, B., Al-Rfou, R., and Skiena, S. (2014). Deepwalk: Online learning of social representations.
InProceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and
data mining , pages 701{710. ACM.
Pevn y, T. and Somol, P. (2017). Using neural network formalism to solve multiple-instance problems.
InInternational Symposium on Neural Networks , pages 135{142. Springer.
Pinker, S. and Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed
processing model of language acquisition. Cognition , 28(1-2):73{193.
Plate, T. A. (1995). Holographic reduced representations. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks ,
6(3):623{641.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., and Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal
and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological
Review , 103(1):56.


and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological
Review , 103(1):56.
Pollack, J. B. (1990). Recursive distributed representations. Articial Intelligence , 46(1-2):77{105.
Qi, C. R., Su, H., Mo, K., and Guibas, L. J. (2017). Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d
classication and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
Pattern Recognition (CVPR) .
Raposo, D., Santoro, A., Barrett, D., Pascanu, R., Lillicrap, T., and Battaglia, P. (2017). Discovering
objects and their relations from entangled scene representations. In Workshops at the International
Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
33
Reed, S. and De Freitas, N. (2016). Neural programmer-interpreters. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Ritchie, D., Horsfall, P., and Goodman, N. D. (2016). Deep amortized inference for probabilistic
programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05735 .


programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05735 .
Rosenblatt, F. (1961). Principles of neurodynamics. perceptrons and the theory of brain mechanisms.
Technical report, Cornell Aeronautical Lab Inc., Bualo, NY.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., Group, P. R., et al. (1987). Parallel Distributed Processing ,
volume 1. MIT Press.
Russell, S. J. and Norvig, P. (2009). Articial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd Edition) .
Pearson.
Sabour, S., Frosst, N., and Hinton, G. E. (2017). Dynamic routing between capsules. In Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3859{3869.
Sanchez-Gonzalez, A., Heess, N., Springenberg, J. T., Merel, J., Riedmiller, M., Hadsell, R., and
Battaglia, P. (2018). Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control. In
Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICLR) .


Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICLR) .
Santoro, A., Raposo, D., Barrett, D. G., Malinowski, M., Pascanu, R., Battaglia, P., and Lillicrap,
T. (2017). A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. In Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems .
Scarselli, F., Gori, M., Tsoi, A. C., Hagenbuchner, M., and Monfardini, G. (2009a). Computational
capabilities of graph neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , 20(1):81{102.
Scarselli, F., Gori, M., Tsoi, A. C., Hagenbuchner, M., and Monfardini, G. (2009b). The graph
neural network model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , 20(1):61{80.
Scarselli, F., Yong, S. L., Gori, M., Hagenbuchner, M., Tsoi, A. C., and Maggini, M. (2005). Graph
neural networks for ranking web pages. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International
Conference on Web Intelligence , pages 666{672. IEEE.


neural networks for ranking web pages. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/WIC/ACM International
Conference on Web Intelligence , pages 666{672. IEEE.
Schmidhuber, J. (2015). Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Networks , 61:85{117.
Selsam, D., Lamm, M., Bunz, B., Liang, P., de Moura, L., and Dill, D. L. (2018). Learning a sat
solver from single-bit supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03685 .
Shalev-Shwartz, S., Shamir, O., and Shammah, S. (2017). Failures of gradient-based deep learning.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07950 .
Shaw, P., Uszkoreit, J., and Vaswani, A. (2018). Self-attention with relative position representations.
InProceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association
for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies .
Shervashidze, N., Schweitzer, P., Leeuwen, E. J. v., Mehlhorn, K., and Borgwardt, K. M. (2011).


Weisfeiler-lehman graph kernels. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12(Sep):2539{2561.
Silver, D., Huang, A., Maddison, C. J., Guez, A., Sifre, L., Van Den Driessche, G., Schrittwieser, J.,
Antonoglou, I., Panneershelvam, V., Lanctot, M., et al. (2016). Mastering the game of go with
deep neural networks and tree search. Nature , 529(7587):484{489.
34
Smolensky, P. (1990). Tensor product variable binding and the representation of symbolic structures
in connectionist systems. Articial Intelligence , 46(1-2):159{216.
Socher, R., Huval, B., Manning, C. D., and Ng, A. Y. (2012). Semantic compositionality through
recursive matrix-vector spaces. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in
Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) and Computational Natural Language Learning (CNLL) ,
pages 1201{1211. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Socher, R., Lin, C. C., Manning, C., and Ng, A. Y. (2011a). Parsing natural scenes and natural


Socher, R., Lin, C. C., Manning, C., and Ng, A. Y. (2011a). Parsing natural scenes and natural
language with recursive neural networks. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on
Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 129{136.
Socher, R., Pennington, J., Huang, E. H., Ng, A. Y., and Manning, C. D. (2011b). Semi-supervised
recursive autoencoders for predicting sentiment distributions. In Proceedings of the Conference
on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 151{161. Association for
Computational Linguistics.
Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A., and Potts, C. (2013).
Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of
the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 1631{1642.
Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., and Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge.
Psychological review , 99(4):605.


Psychological review , 99(4):605.
Spelke, E. S. and Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science , 10(1):89{96.
Srivastava, N., Hinton, G., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Salakhutdinov, R. (2014). Dropout:
A simple way to prevent neural networks from overtting. The Journal of Machine Learning
Research , 15(1):1929{1958.
Sukhbaatar, S., Fergus, R., et al. (2016). Learning multiagent communication with backpropagation.
InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2244{2252.
Sukhbaatar, S., Weston, J., Fergus, R., et al. (2015). End-to-end memory networks. In Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 2440{2448.
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., and Le, Q. V. (2014). Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks.
InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3104{3112.


InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3104{3112.
Szegedy, C., Ioe, S., Vanhoucke, V., and Alemi, A. A. (2017). Inception-v4, inception-resnet
and the impact of residual connections on learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on
Articial Intelligence (AAAI) , volume 4, page 12.
Tai, K. S., Socher, R., and Manning, C. D. (2015). Improved semantic representations from
tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) .
Tang, J., Qu, M., Wang, M., Zhang, M., Yan, J., and Mei, Q. (2015). Line: Large-scale information
network embedding. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web ,
pages 1067{1077. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Tenenbaum, J. B., Griths, T. L., and Kemp, C. (2006). Theory-based bayesian models of inductive
learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10(7):309{318.
35


learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10(7):309{318.
35
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griths, T. L., and Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind:
Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science , 331(6022):1279{1285.
Toyer, S., Trevizan, F., Thiebaux, S., and Xie, L. (2017). Action schema networks: Generalised
policies with deep learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Articial Intelligence
(AAAI) .
Ullman, T. D., Spelke, E., Battaglia, P., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Mind games: Game engines
as an architecture for intuitive physics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 21(9):649{665.
van Steenkiste, S., Chang, M., Gre, K., and Schmidhuber, J. (2018). Relational neural expectation
maximization: Unsupervised discovery of objects and their interactions. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .


maximization: Unsupervised discovery of objects and their interactions. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., and
Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems .
Veli ckovi c, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Li o, P., and Bengio, Y. (2018). Graph
attention networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .
Wang, J. X., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Kumaran, D., Tirumala, D., Soyer, H., Leibo, J. Z., Hassabis, D.,
and Botvinick, M. (2018a). Prefrontal cortex as a meta-reinforcement learning system. Nature
neuroscience , page 1.
Wang, J. X., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Tirumala, D., Soyer, H., Leibo, J. Z., Munos, R., Blundell, C.,


Kumaran, D., and Botvinick, M. (2016). Learning to reinforcement learn. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1611.05763 .
Wang, T., Liao, R., Ba, J., and Fidler, S. (2018b). Nervenet: Learning structured policy with graph
neural networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations
(ICLR) .
Wang, X., Girshick, R., Gupta, A., and He, K. (2018c). Non-local neural networks. In Proceedings
of the Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) .
Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Liu, Z., Sarma, S. E., Bronstein, M. M., and Solomon, J. M. (2018d). Dynamic
graph cnn for learning on point clouds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07829 .
Watters, N., Zoran, D., Weber, T., Battaglia, P., Pascanu, R., and Tacchetti, A. (2017). Visual
interaction networks: Learning a physics simulator from video. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems , pages 4542{4550.


interaction networks: Learning a physics simulator from video. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems , pages 4542{4550.
Wu, J., Lu, E., Kohli, P., Freeman, B., and Tenenbaum, J. (2017). Learning to see physics via
visual de-animation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 152{163.
Yoon, K., Liao, R., Xiong, Y., Zhang, L., Fetaya, E., Urtasun, R., Zemel, R., and Pitkow, X.
(2018). Inference in probabilistic graphical models by graph neural networks. In Workshops at
the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) .
You, J., Ying, R., Ren, X., Hamilton, W. L., and Leskovec, J. (2018). GraphRNN: A deep generative
model for graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08773 .
36
Yuille, A. L. and Liu, C. (2018). Deep nets: What have they ever done for vision? arXiv preprint
arXiv:1805.04025 .


arXiv:1805.04025 .
Zaheer, M., Kottur, S., Ravanbakhsh, S., Poczos, B., Salakhutdinov, R. R., and Smola, A. J. (2017).
Deep sets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3394{3404.
Zambaldi, V., Raposo, D., Santoro, A., Bapst, V., Li, Y., Babuschkin, I., Tuyls, K., Reichert, D.,
Lillicrap, T., Lockhart, E., Shanahan, M., Langston, V., Pascanu, R., Botvinick, M., Vinyals, O.,
and Battaglia, P. (2018). Relational deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv .
Zhang, A., Lerer, A., Sukhbaatar, S., Fergus, R., and Szlam, A. (2018). Composable planning with
attributes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00512 .
Z ugner, D., Akbarnejad, A., and G unnemann, S. (2018). Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks


Z ugner, D., Akbarnejad, A., and G unnemann, S. (2018). Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks
for Graph Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07984 .
37
Appendix: Formulations of additional models
In this appendix we give more examples of how published networks can t in the frame dened by
Equation 1.
Interaction networks
Interaction Networks (Battaglia et al., 2016; Watters et al., 2017) and the Neural Physics Engine
Chang et al. (2017) use a full GN but for the absence of the global to update the edge properties:
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(ek;vrk;vsk) = NNe([ek;vrk;vsk])
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi;u
= NNv
[ e0
i;vi;u]
e!v
E0
i:= =X
fk:rk=ige0
k
That work also included an extension to the above formulation which output global, rather than
per-node, predictions:


fk:rk=ige0
k
That work also included an extension to the above formulation which output global, rather than
per-node, predictions:
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(ek;vrk;vsk) = NNe([ek;vrk;vsk])
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi;u
= NNv
[ e0
i;vi;u]
u
 e0; v0;u:=fu
 v0;u
= NNu
[ v0;u]
v!g
V0:= =X
iv0
i
Non-pairwise interactions
Gated Graph Sequence Neural Networks (GGS-NN) (Li et al., 2016) use a slightly generalized
formulation where each edge has an attached type tk2f1;::;Tg, and the updates are:
e((ek;tk);vrk;vsk;u):=fe(ek;vsk) = NNe;tk(vsk)
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi


v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi
= NNv
[ e0
i;vi]
e!v
E0
i:= =X
fk:rk=ige0
k
These updates are applied recurrently (the NNvis a GRU (Cho et al., 2014)), followed by a global
decoder which computes a weighted sum of embedded nal node states. Here each NNe;tkis a neural
network with specic parameters.
CommNet (Sukhbaatar et al., 2016) (in the slightly more general form described by (Hoshen,
2017)) uses:
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(vsk) = NN e(vsk)
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i;vi
= NNv
[ e0
i;NNv0(vi)]
e!v
E0
i:= =1
jE0
ijX
fk:rk=ige0
k
38
Attention-based approaches


E0
i:= =1
jE0
ijX
fk:rk=ige0
k
38
Attention-based approaches
The various attention-based approaches use a ewhich is factored into a scalar pairwise-interaction
function which returns the unnormalized attention term, denoted e(vrk;vsk)=a0
k, and a vectorvalued non-pairwise term, denoted e(vsk) =b0
k,
e(ek;vrk;vsk;u):=fe(vrk;vsk) = (e(vrk;vsk); e(vsk)) = (a0
k;b0
k) =e0
k
The single-headed self-attention (SA) in the Transformer architecture (Vaswani et al., 2017),
implements the non-local formulation as:
e(vrk;vsk) = exp (NN query(vrk)|NNkey(vsk))
e(vsk) = NN (vsk)
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i
= NNv
 e0
i


v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i
= NNv
 e0
i
where NNquery,NNkey, and NNare again neural network functions with dierent parameters and
possibly dierent architectures. They also use a multi-headed version which computes Nhparallel
 e0h
iusing dierent NNquery
h,NNkey
h,NNh, wherehindexes the dierent parameters. These are
passed tofvand concatenated:
fv
f e0h
igh=1:::Nh
= NNv
[ e01
i;:::; e0Nh
i]
Vertex Attention Interaction Networks (Hoshen, 2017) are very similar to single-headed SA,
but use Euclidean distance for the attentional similarity metric, with shared parameters across the
attention inputs' embeddings, and also use the input node feature in the node update function,
e(vrk;vsk) = exp
kNN(vrk)NN(vsk)k2
e(vsk) = NN (vsk)
v


kNN(vrk)NN(vsk)k2
e(vsk) = NN (vsk)
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
 e0
i
= NNv
[ e0
i;vi]
Graph Attention Networks (Veli ckovi c et al., 2018) are also similar to multi-headed SA, but use
a neural network as the attentional similarity metric, with shared parameters across the attention
inputs' embeddings:
e(vrk;vsk) = exp (NN 0([NN(vrk);NN(vsk)))
e(vsk) = NN (vsk)
v
 e0
i;vi;u:=fv
f e0h
igh=1:::Nh
= NNv
[ e01
i;:::; e0Nh
i]
Stretching beyond the specic non-local formulation, Shaw et al. (2018) extended multi-headed
SA with relative position encodings. \Relative" refers to an encoding of the spatial distance between


SA with relative position encodings. \Relative" refers to an encoding of the spatial distance between
nodes in a sequence or other signal in a metric space. This can be expressed in GN language as an
edge attribute ek, and replacing the e(vsk) from multi-headed SA above with:
e(ek;vsk) = NNe(vsk) +ek
39
Belief Propagation embeddings
Finally, we brie
y summarize how the general \structure2vec" algorithm of Dai et al. (2016) can t
into our framework. In order to do so, we need to slightly modify our main Equation 1, i.e.:
k=
felgsl=rk
rl6=sk
:=X
rl=sk
sl6=rkel
e0
k=e(k) :=f(k) = NN( k)
 e0
i=
fe0
kgrk=i:=X
fk:rk=igek
v0
i=v
 e0
i:=f( e0
i) = NN(  e0
i)


v0
i=v
 e0
i:=f( e0
i) = NN(  e0
i)
Edges' features now takes the meaning of \message" between their receiver and sender; note that
there is only one set of parameters to learn for both the edges and nodes updates.
40


Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos
Fabien Baradel1, Natalia Neverova2, Christian Wolf1;3,
Julien Mille4, and Greg Mori5
1Universit e Lyon, INSA Lyon, CNRS, LIRIS, F-69621, Villeurbanne, France,
firstname.lastname@liris.cnrs.fr
2Facebook AI Research, Paris, France, nneverova@fb.com
3INRIA, CITI Laboratory, Villeurbanne, France
4Laboratoire d'Informatique de l'Univ. de Tours, INSA Centre Val de Loire,
41034, Blois, France, julien.mille@insa-cvl.fr
5Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, mori@cs.sfu.ca
https://fabienbaradel.github.io/eccv18_object_level_visual_reasoning/
Abstract. Human activity recognition is typically addressed by detecting key concepts like global and local motion, features related to object
classes present in the scene, as well as features related to the global context. The next open challenges in activity recognition require a level of
understanding that pushes beyond this and call for models with capabilities for ne distinction and detailed comprehension of interactions

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos

Summary:
Human activity recognition is typically addressed by detecting key concepts
like global and local motion, features related to object classes present in the
scene, as well as features related to the global context. The next open
challenges in activity recognition require a level of understanding that pushes
beyond this and call for models with capabilities for fine distinction and
detailed comprehension of interactions between actors and objects in a scene.
We propose a model capable of learning to reason about semantically meaningful
spatiotemporal interactions in videos. The key to our approach is a choice of
performing this reasoning at the object level through the integration of state
of the art object detection networks. This allows the model to learn detailed
spatial interactions that exist at a semantic, object-interaction relevant
level. We evaluate our method on three standard datasets (Twenty-BN
Something-Something, VLOG and EPIC Kitchens) and achieve state of the art
results on all of them. Finally, we show visualizations of the interactions
learned by the model, which illustrate object classes and their interactions
corresponding to different activity classes.

Fabien Baradel
Natalia Neverova
Christian Wolf
Julien Mille
Greg Mori

Accepted at ECCV 2018 - long version (16 pages + ref)


understanding that pushes beyond this and call for models with capabilities for ne distinction and detailed comprehension of interactions
between actors and objects in a scene. We propose a model capable of
learning to reason about semantically meaningful spatio-temporal interactions in videos. The key to our approach is a choice of performing
this reasoning at the object level through the integration of state of the
art object detection networks. This allows the model to learn detailed
spatial interactions that exist at a semantic, object-interaction relevant
level. We evaluate our method on three standard datasets (Twenty-BN
Something-Something, VLOG and EPIC Kitchens) and achieve state of
the art results on all of them. Finally, we show visualizations of the interactions learned by the model, which illustrate object classes and their
interactions corresponding to dierent activity classes.
Keywords: Video understanding Human-object interaction
1 Introduction
The eld of video understanding is extremely diverse, ranging from extracting highly detailed information captured by specically designed motion capture systems [33] to making general sense of videos from the Web [1]. As in
the domain of image recognition, there exist a number of large-scale video
datasets [6,26,13,12,23,14], which allow the training of high-capacity deep learning models from massive amounts of data. These models enable detection of key

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


datasets [6,26,13,12,23,14], which allow the training of high-capacity deep learning models from massive amounts of data. These models enable detection of key
cues present in videos, such as global and local motion, various object categories
and global scene-level information, and often achieve impressive performance in
recognizing high-level, abstract concepts in the wild.arXiv:1806.06157v3  [cs.CV]  20 Sep 2018
2 Baradel et al.
person 0.86person 0.87knife 0.98carrot 0.99carrot 0.72carrot 0.98
person 0.65knife 0.99carrot 0.97carrot 0.97carrot 0.93carrot 0.86carrot 0.95
Fig. 1. Humans can understand what happened in a video (\the leftmost carrot was
chopped by the person") given only a pair of frames. Along these lines, the goal of this
work is to explore the capabilities of higher-level reasoning in neural models operating
at the semantic level of objects and interactions.
However, recent attention has been directed toward a more thorough understanding of human-focused activity in diverse internet videos. These eorts
range from atomic human actions [14] to ne-grained object interactions [13]

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


range from atomic human actions [14] to ne-grained object interactions [13]
to everyday, commonly occurring human-object interactions [12]. This returns
us to a human-centric viewpoint of activity recognition where it is not only the
presence of certain objects / scenes that dictate the activity present, but the
manner, order, and eects of human interaction with these scene elements that
are necessary for understanding. In a sense, this is akin to the problems in current
3D human activity recognition datasets [33], but requires the more challenging
reasoning and understanding of diverse environments common to internet video
collections.
Humans are able to infer what happened in a video given only a few sample frames. In particular, they can infer complex activities happening between
pairs of frames. This faculty is called reasoning and is a key component of human intelligence. As an example we can consider the pair of images in Figure 1,
which shows a complex situation involving articulated objects (human, carrots
and knife), the change of location and composition of objects. For humans it is
straightforward to draw a conclusion on what happened (a carrot was chopped
by the human). Humans have this extraordinary ability of performing visual reasoning on very complicated tasks while it remains unattainable for contemporary
computer vision algorithms [37,11].
The ability to perform visual reasoning in computer vision algorithms is still

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


computer vision algorithms [37,11].
The ability to perform visual reasoning in computer vision algorithms is still
an open problem. Attempts have been made for learning interactions between
dierent entities in images with promising results on Visual Question Answering.
There have been a number of attempts to equip neural models with reasoning
abilities by training them to solve Visual Question Answering (VQA) problems.
Among proposed solutions are prior-less data normalization [27], structuring
networks to model relationships [32,43] as well as more complex attention based
Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos 3
mechanisms [18]. At the same time, it was shown that high performance on existing VQA datasets can be achieved by simply discovering biases in the data [21].
We extend these eorts to object level reasoning in videos . Since a video is
a temporal sequence, we leverage time as an explicit causal signal to identify
causal object relations. Our approach is related to the concept of the \arrow of
the time" [28] involving the \one-way direction" or \asymmetry" of time. Causal
event occurs before the event it aects ( A!B). In Figure 1 the knife was used
before the carrot switched over to the chopped-up state on the right side. For

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


event occurs before the event it aects ( A!B). In Figure 1 the knife was used
before the carrot switched over to the chopped-up state on the right side. For
a video classication problem, we want to identify a causal event Ahappening
in a video that aects its label B. But instead of identifying this causal event
directly from pixels we want to identify it from an object level perspective. We
believe that such an approach would be able to learn causal signals.
Following this hypothesis we propose to make a bridge between object detection and activity recognition. Object detection allows us to extract low-level
information from a scene with all the present object instances and their semantic
meanings. However, detailed activity understanding requires reasoning over these
semantic structures, determining which objects were involved in interactions, of
what nature, and what were the results of these. To compound problems, the
semantic structure of a scene may change during a video (e.g. a new object can
appear, a person may make a move from one point to another one of the scene).
We propose an Object Relation Network (ORN), a neural network module for reasoning between detected semantic object instances through space and
time. The ORN has potential to address these issues and conduct relational
reasoning over object interactions for the purpose of activity recognition. A set

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


time. The ORN has potential to address these issues and conduct relational
reasoning over object interactions for the purpose of activity recognition. A set
of object detection masks ranging over dierent object categories and temporal
occurrences is input to the ORN. The ORN is able to infer pairwise relationships
between objects detected at varying dierent moments in time.
Code and object masks predictions will be publicly available6.
2 Related work
Action Recognition. Action recognition has a long history in computer vision. Pre-deep learning approaches in action recognition focused on handcrafted
spatio-temporal features including space-time interest points like SIFT-3D, HOG3D,
IDT and aggregated them using bag-of-words techniques. Some hand-crafted representations, like dense trajectories [42], still give competitive performance and
are frequently combined with deep learning.
In the recent past, work has shifted to deep learning. Early attempts adapt
2D convolutional networks to videos through temporal pooling and 3D convolutions [2,40]. 3D convolutions are now widely adopted for activity recognition with
the introduction of feature transfer by in
ating pre-trained 2D convolutional kernels from image classication models trained on ImageNet/ILSVRC [31] through
3D kernels [6]. The downside of 3D kernels is their computational complexity

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


3D kernels [6]. The downside of 3D kernels is their computational complexity
6https://github.com/fabienbaradel/object_level_visual_reasoning
4 Baradel et al.
and the large number of learnable parameters, leading to the introduction of
2.5D kernels, i.e. separable lters in the form of a 2D spatial kernel followed by
a temporal kernel [44]. An alternative to temporal convolutions are Recurrent
Neural Networks (RNNs) in their various gated forms (GRUs, LSTMs) [17,9].
Karpathy et al. [20] presented a wide study on dierent ways of connecting
information in spatial and temporal dimensions through convolutions and pooling. On very general datasets with coarse activity classes they have showed that
there was a small margin between classifying individual frames and classifying
videos with more sophisticated temporal aggregation.
Simoyan et al. [35] proposed a widely adopted two-stream architecture for
action recognition which extracts two dierent streams, one processing raw RGB
input and one processing pre-computed optical
ow images. The method outperformed the state of the art, but relies on rather small scale optical
ow computations.
In slightly narrower settings, prior information on the video content can allow

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


In slightly narrower settings, prior information on the video content can allow
more ne-grained models. Articulated pose is widely used in cases where humans
are guaranteed to be present [33]. Pose estimation and activity recognition as a
joint (multi-task) problem has recently shown to improve both tasks [25]. Somewhat related to our work, Structural RNNs [19] perform activity recognition
by integrating features from semantic objects and their relationships. However,
they handle the temporal evolution of tracked objects in videos with a set of
RNNs, each of which corresponds to cliques in a graph which models the spatiotemporal relationships between these objects. This graph is hand-crafted manually for each application, though related work provides learnable connections
via gating functions [8].
Attention models are a way to structure deep networks in an often generic
way. They are able to iteratively focus attention to specic parts in the data without requiring prior knowledge about part or object positions. In activity recognition, they have gained some traction in recent years, either as soft-attention
on articulated pose (joints) [36], on feature map cells [34,39], on time [45] or on
parts in raw RGB input through dierentiable crops [3].
When raw video data is globally fed into deep neural networks, they focus

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


parts in raw RGB input through dierentiable crops [3].
When raw video data is globally fed into deep neural networks, they focus
on extracting spatio-temporal features and perform aggregations. It has been
shown that these techniques fail on challenging ne-grained datasets, which require learning long temporal dependencies and human-object interactions. A
concentrated eort has been made to create large scale datasets to overcome
these issues [13,12,23,14].
Relational Reasoning. Relational reasoning is a well studied eld for many
applications ranging from visual reasoning [32] to reasoning about physical
systems [4]. Battaglia et al. [4] introduce a fully-dierentiable network physics
engine called Interaction Network (IN). IN learns to predict several physical
systems such as gravitational systems, rigid body dynamics, and mass-spring
systems. It shows impressive results; however, it learns from a virtual environment, which provides access to virtually unlimited training examples. Following
the same perspective, Santoro et al. [32] introduced Relation Network (RN),
Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos 5
a plug-in module for reasoning in deep networks. RN shows human-level performance in Visual Question Answering (VQA) by inferring pairwise \object"

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


a plug-in module for reasoning in deep networks. RN shows human-level performance in Visual Question Answering (VQA) by inferring pairwise \object"
relations. However, in contrast to our work, the term \object" in [32] does not
refer to semantically meaningful entities, but to discrete cells in feature maps.
The number of interactions therefore grows with feature map resolutions, which
makes it dicult to scale. Furthermore, a recent study [21] has shown that some
of these results are subject to dataset bias and do not generalize well to small
changes in the settings of the dataset.
In the same line, a recent work [38] has shown promising results on discovering objects and their interactions in an unsupervised manner using training
examples from virtual environments. In [41], attention and relational modules
are combined on a graph structure. From a dierent perspective, [27] show that
relational reasoning can be learned for visual reasoning in a data driven way without any prior using conditional batch normalization with a feature-wise ane
transformation based on conditioning information. In an opposite approach, a
strong structural prior is learned in the form of a complex attention mechanism: in [18], an external memory module combined with attention processes
over input images and text questions, performing iterative reasoning for VQA.

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


over input images and text questions, performing iterative reasoning for VQA.
While most of the discussed work has been designed for VQA and for predictions on physical systems and environments, extensions have been proposed
for video understanding. Reasoning in videos on a mask or segmentation level
has been attempted for video prediction [24], where the goal was to leverage semantic information to be able predict further into the future. Zhou et al [5] have
recently shown state-of-the-art performance on challenging datasets by extending Relation Network to video classication. Their chosen entities are frames, on
which they employ RN to reason on a temporal level only through pairwise frame
relations. The approach is promising, but restricted to temporal contextual information without an understanding on a local object level, which is provided
by our approach.
Reasoning over sets of objects is somewhat related to reasoning from unstructured data points, as done in PointNet [29], designed to learn from unordered sets
of points. PointNet shares many properties with DeepSet [46] which is a more
general framework for extracting information from sets of objects. To some extent, our work is related to PointNet, as we handle unordered sets of objects in a
permutation invariant way. However, we have an object relation viewpoint that
directly reasons over relationships between these semantic entities.
3 Object-level Visual Reasoning in Space and Time

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


permutation invariant way. However, we have an object relation viewpoint that
directly reasons over relationships between these semantic entities.
3 Object-level Visual Reasoning in Space and Time
Our goal is to extract multiple types of cues from a video sequence: interactions
between predicted objects and their semantic classes, as well as local and global
motion in the scene. We formulate this objective as a neural architecture with
two heads: an activity head and an object head . Figure 2 gives a functional
overview of the model. Both heads share common features up to a certain layer
shown in red in the gure. The activity head , shown in orange in the gure,
6 Baradel et al.
spatio-temporalblock

Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos


Object Level Visual Reasoning in Videos