Unlock the power of graph neural networks to detect fraud rings, predict customer churn, optimize supply chains, and discover patterns that traditional ML misses. Deep learning meets graph structure for enterprise-scale intelligence.
Enterprise data is inherently relational: customers connected to products, employees connected to projects, transactions connected to accounts. Traditional machine learning flattens this network structure into feature vectors, losing the rich relationship information that graph neural networks preserve.
Standard ML requires converting graphs to tabular data: 'customer has 5 purchases, connected to 3 other customers'. This crude summarization discards network topology, connection strength, multi-hop patterns, and temporal dynamics.
Customer behavior influenced by network neighbors (viral adoption, social influence). Supply chain risk cascades through connections. Fraud rings operate as coordinated groups. Traditional ML treats each node independently, missing collective patterns.
Engineering graph features manually doesn't scale: 'compute centrality, count neighbors, measure clustering coefficient' for millions of nodes. Features become stale as graph evolves. GNNs automatically learn optimal graph representations.
Traditional ML can't reason about 'friends of friends' patterns without explicit feature engineering. GNNs naturally propagate information through multiple hops, capturing complex network dependencies and indirect influences.
GNNs are neural networks designed to operate directly on graph-structured data. They learn node representations by aggregating information from neighbors, iteratively propagating features through the network. Each layer of a GNN captures patterns at increasing network distances (1-hop, 2-hop, 3-hop neighbors).
This architecture naturally handles variable-sized neighborhoods, evolving graph structures, and different types of nodes/edges. GNNs power recommendation systems at Pinterest and Alibaba, fraud detection at PayPal and Uber, drug discovery at pharma companies, and supply chain optimization at logistics firms.
From nodes and edges to learned embeddings and predictions.
Input graph consists of nodes (entities: customers, products, accounts), edges (relationships: purchased, connected_to, transacted_with), node features (customer demographics, product attributes), and edge features (transaction amount, relationship strength, timestamp).
Nodes: 10M customers, 100K products
Edges: 50M "purchased" relationships, 5M "viewed" relationships
Features: Customer (age, location, tenure), Product (category, price, ratings), Edge (purchase date, quantity, rating given)
Core GNN operation: each node aggregates features from its neighbors using learned aggregation function (mean, max, attention-weighted). Node updates its own representation by combining its features with aggregated neighbor information. Process repeats for multiple layers.
Layer 1: Customer node aggregates features from products they purchased (1-hop neighbors)
Layer 2: Customer representation now includes info about products AND other customers who bought same products (2-hop)
Layer 3: Captures preferences of 'customers like me who bought similar products' (3-hop collaborative filtering)
After message passing layers, each node has a dense embedding vector that encodes: its own features, local network structure (immediate neighbors), broader network position (multi-hop patterns), and relationship context. These embeddings are input to prediction tasks.
Embeddings cluster similar nodes: customers with similar purchase patterns have similar vectors even if they never directly interacted. Graph structure provides supervision signal beyond just node attributes. Enables transfer learning: embeddings learned for one task (product recommendations) useful for another (churn prediction).
GNN embeddings power various predictions: Node classification (fraud/legitimate account, customer segment), Link prediction (will customer buy this product, will user connect with this person), Graph classification (is transaction network suspicious, is molecular structure toxic).
• Fraud Detection: Classify accounts as fraudulent based on transaction patterns and network connections
• Recommendations: Predict customer-product edges that don't exist yet (link prediction)
• Anomaly Detection: Flag subgraphs (connected transaction groups) that deviate from normal patterns
GNNs trained end-to-end using backpropagation. Loss function depends on task (cross-entropy for classification, ranking loss for recommendations). Mini-batch training samples subgraphs. Special techniques handle scale: neighbor sampling, graph partitioning, distributed training.
Billion-node graphs: Sample fixed number of neighbors per node (10-20 instead of all neighbors). Cluster graph into partitions, train on each partition separately. Use GraphSAINT, ClusterGCN, or FastGCN sampling algorithms. Deploy on distributed infrastructure (multi-GPU, graph databases).
Real-world deployments delivering measurable business value.
GNNs detect fraud rings by analyzing transaction networks. Traditional ML examines individual transactions; GNNs identify coordinated activity across multiple accounts. Money laundering schemes involve complex networks of shell companies, intermediaries, and beneficiaries—GNNs trace money flow through multi-hop paths.
PayPal: 70% improvement in fraud detection accuracy. Detected sophisticated fraud rings missed by rule-based systems. Reduced false positives 50%, saving millions in investigation costs. HSBC: Improved AML detection, identifying complex layering schemes across jurisdictions.
GNNs power recommendation systems by modeling user-item-context graphs. Capture collaborative filtering (users who bought A also bought B), content similarity (products with similar attributes), and session sequences (temporal purchase patterns). Handle cold-start problem better than matrix factorization.
Pinterest: 150% improvement in engagement using PinSage GNN with 3B nodes. Alibaba: 20% GMV increase from graph-based recommendations. Amazon: Product recommendation CTR improved 35% by incorporating graph structure beyond just purchase history.
Model supply chains as graphs: suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, customers connected by material flow, dependencies, contracts. GNNs predict disruption risk propagation, identify critical nodes, optimize inventory placement, and detect counterfeit components entering network.
Automotive manufacturer: Predicted supply shortage 6 weeks earlier by analyzing supplier network vulnerabilities. Pharmaceutical company: Detected counterfeit drug distribution through network anomaly patterns. Logistics firm: Optimized warehouse placement reducing costs 18%.
Identify influencers, predict viral content spread, detect bot networks, segment users by behavior patterns. GNNs capture network effects: user adoption influenced by connected users' behaviors. Marketing campaigns optimized by targeting high-centrality nodes for maximum diffusion.
Social media platform: Identified bot networks with 94% accuracy using GNN analysis of following patterns. Marketing agency: 3x campaign ROI by GNN-based influencer selection (network centrality vs. follower count). Churn prediction accuracy improved 40% by including social influence features.
GNNs predict missing edges in knowledge graphs (entity relationships not yet discovered). Multi-hop reasoning for question answering: 'Where was the founder of Company X born?' requires traversing founder_of and birthplace relationships. Outperforms embedding-based methods on complex reasoning.
Pharmaceutical R&D: GNN-based drug-disease link prediction identified 12 novel treatment candidates, 3 advanced to clinical trials. Customer support: Question answering accuracy improved 55% using GNN reasoning over product knowledge graph vs. keyword search.
Model IT infrastructure as graph: devices, users, processes, network connections. GNNs detect lateral movement (attackers spreading through network), identify compromised accounts (behavioral anomalies in context of network position), predict attack paths, and flag suspicious network topology changes.
Financial institution: Detected advanced persistent threat 40 days earlier than previous methods by analyzing anomalous network access patterns. Reduced security alert noise 60% by incorporating network context (expected vs. unexpected connections).
From proof-of-concept to production GNN systems.
Define nodes (entities in your domain), edges (relationships), node features (attributes), edge features (relationship properties). Extract graph from existing data sources: transactions, user interactions, system logs. Choose graph database (Neo4j, TigerGraph) or in-memory format (NetworkX, DGL). Balance graph density vs. noise (too many edges dilute signal).
GNN variants: GraphSAGE (scalable, inductive learning), GCN (semi-supervised node classification), GAT (attention mechanisms), GIN (graph isomorphism). Choose based on: graph size (billions of nodes → GraphSAGE), prediction task (node vs. edge vs. graph level), interpretability needs (attention models provide explanations).
Libraries: PyTorch Geometric (most popular, flexible), DGL (Deep Graph Library, distributed training), Spektral (TensorFlow/Keras). Infrastructure: GPU servers for training (V100/A100), graph database for serving, vector database for embedding storage. For billion-scale graphs: multi-GPU, distributed training (DGL, GraphLearn).
Split graph into train/val/test carefully (avoid data leakage through edges). Handle class imbalance (fraud detection: 99.9% legitimate). Use appropriate sampling strategies (negative sampling for link prediction, neighbor sampling for scalability). Monitor convergence, overfitting. Typical training time: hours to days depending on scale.
Options: (1) Batch inference—generate embeddings offline, store in vector DB, serve via API. (2) Real-time inference—load graph, run GNN on-demand (higher latency). (3) Hybrid—precompute embeddings, fine-tune for real-time updates. Monitor model drift as graph evolves. Retrain periodically (weekly/monthly) to incorporate new nodes/edges.
Provide explanations: which neighbors influenced prediction (use attention weights or GNNExplainer). Log predictions and subgraph contexts for audit. Monitor performance metrics: prediction accuracy, latency, graph statistics (degree distribution, connected components). Set up alerts for anomalous graph changes or model degradation.
Analyze failure cases: false positives/negatives. Enhance features: add external data sources, engineer better node/edge attributes. Tune architecture: depth (number of layers), aggregation function, regularization. A/B test against existing systems. Measure business impact: fraud caught, recommendation engagement, operational efficiency.
Our graph neural network specialists help you design, train, and deploy GNN systems for fraud detection, recommendations, supply chain optimization, and more. From architecture selection to production deployment.
Traditional graph algorithms (PageRank, shortest path, clustering) are hand-crafted heuristics—humans design the logic. GNNs are learned models—they discover patterns from data. PageRank always uses same formula; GNN learns task-specific aggregation. Traditional algorithms excel at structural analysis (centrality, communities). GNNs excel at prediction tasks requiring both structure and features (fraud detection, recommendations). Often best to combine: use PageRank score as node feature input to GNN.
Not strictly required but highly beneficial for production. Training: Can load graph into memory (NetworkX, DGL data structures) from relational DB or files. Works for graphs up to ~100M edges on large RAM servers. Production serving: Graph database (Neo4j, TigerGraph) enables real-time queries, handles graph updates, supports transactional consistency. Scales to billions of edges. Alternative: store embeddings in vector DB, only query graph for features when needed.
Single GPU: ~10M nodes, 100M edges comfortably. Multi-GPU distributed: 1B+ nodes, 10B+ edges (e.g., Pinterest PinSage with 3B nodes). Scalability techniques: neighbor sampling (don't aggregate from ALL neighbors, sample fixed set), mini-batching (train on subgraphs), graph partitioning (split across machines). Commercial deployments handle social network graphs, transaction networks, recommendation systems at web scale. Development usually starts smaller (10K-1M nodes) for proof-of-concept.
Advantages over traditional ML: Graph structure provides supervision signal beyond just labeled examples. Semi-supervised learning works well—label 10% of nodes, GNN propagates labels through network. For fraud detection: 1000-10,000 labeled examples (fraud/legitimate) often sufficient with graph of 1M+ nodes. Link prediction: naturally creates training data from observed edges. Transfer learning: pre-train on large public graph, fine-tune on your smaller dataset. Need less data than training from scratch.
Better than deep neural nets, not as transparent as rule-based systems. Explainability approaches: (1) Attention mechanisms show which neighbors influenced prediction most, (2) GNNExplainer identifies critical subgraph for decision, (3) Feature importance shows which node/edge attributes mattered, (4) Example-based explanations find similar past cases. For regulated domains, combine GNN with symbolic rules: GNN provides predictions, rules validate and explain. Hybrid approach balances accuracy with auditability.
Let's build GNN systems that leverage your network data for fraud detection, personalization, optimization, and predictive analytics. Our team has deployed graph AI for fintech, e-commerce, logistics, and social platforms.
Or call us at +46 73 992 5951