TL;DR
This paper introduces BWFlow, a novel graph generation method that models joint node and edge evolution using optimal transport, resulting in smoother probability paths and improved training and sampling performance.
Contribution
It presents a theoretically grounded framework for constructing smooth probability paths in graph generation by modeling graphs as Markov random fields and leveraging optimal transport.
Findings
BWFlow achieves competitive graph generation performance.
It demonstrates better training convergence compared to existing methods.
It enables more efficient and reliable sampling of graphs.
Abstract
Graph generation has emerged as a critical task in fields ranging from drug discovery to circuit design. Contemporary approaches, notably diffusion and flow-based models, have achieved solid graph generative performance through constructing a probability path that interpolates between reference and data distributions. However, these methods typically model the evolution of individual nodes and edges independently and use linear interpolations in the disjoint space of nodes/edges to build the path. This disentangled interpolation breaks the interconnected patterns of graphs, making the constructed probability path irregular and non-smooth, which causes poor training dynamics and faulty sampling convergence. To address the limitation, this paper first presents a theoretically grounded framework for probability path construction in graph generative models. Specifically, we model the joint…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
S1. Good motivation. "MRFs organize the nodes/edges as an interconnected system and interpolating between two MRFs captures the joint evolution of the graph system" sounds reasonable to me. S2. This paper's presentation is nice. Even without checking the detailed mathematical derivations, I can still follow the story in the main content. S3. The experimental results seem impressive.
Generally, i am satisfied about the quality of this paper. Here are some questions/suggestion which might be able to improve this paper. Q1. From lines 66 to 82, it introduces the motivating example of this paper. It is a bit confusing why t=0.8 is such an important point. If this is purely empirical observation, or there are some mathematical reasons? Q2. Can we understand the proposed method as a kind of latent diffusion/flow method, just like the stable diffusion did? I understand that the
The paper is well-written, clear, and methodologically sound, presenting complex ideas with precision and rigor. It establishes a theoretical framework for probability-path construction directly within Markov Random Field (MRF) space, enabling coherent joint node–edge evolution that respects graph-structured dependencies. It introduces a novel integration of MRFs with optimal transport, using MRFs as the ambient representation space for probability paths in a way that naturally aligns with gra
While acknowledged in the limitations, BWFlow incurs substantial computational overhead, and reducing this cost appears non-trivial. The experimental evaluation omits several GNN-based baselines, including DisCo (Xu et al., 2024), limiting the completeness of the comparison.
1. The paper presents a mathematically coherent framework connecting graph optimal transport and flow matching. The closed-form derivations of the BW interpolation and velocity fields are valuable theoretical contributions. 2. Using the BW metric on graph Laplacians provides a geometrically meaningful way to measure and interpolate between graph distributions, which addresses a long-standing issue of linear interpolation violating graph manifold constraints. 3. The experimental section is rela
1. The methodological novelty is mainly compositional: the work combines existing Bures–Wasserstein distance (already applied to graph covariance learning) with the established flow-matching framework under a Graph MRF formulation, resulting in limited originality. 2. The empirical evaluation lacks consistency with standard benchmarks (e.g., DiGress, GruM, DeFoG) and omits common molecular-graph metrics such as Validity, Uniqueness, and Novelty. The results would be more convincing if experimen
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsDiffusion
