Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model CNNs

Federico Monti, Davide Boscaini, Jonathan Masci, E. Rodolà, Jan Svoboda, M. Bronstein

Main figure for Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model CNNs

Abstract

Deep learning has achieved a remarkable performance breakthrough in several fields, most notably in speech recognition, natural language processing, and computer vision. In particular, convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures currently produce state-of-the-art performance on a variety of image analysis tasks such as object detection and recognition. Most of deep learning research has so far focused on dealing with 1D, 2D, or 3D Euclidean-structured data such as acoustic signals, images, or videos. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in geometric deep learning, attempting to generalize deep learning methods to non-Euclidean structured data such as graphs and manifolds, with a variety of applications from the domains of network analysis, computational social science, or computer graphics. In this paper, we propose a unified framework allowing to generalize CNN architectures to non-Euclidean domains (graphs and manifolds) and learn local, stationary, and compositional task-specific features. We show that various non-Euclidean CNN methods previously proposed in the literature can be considered as particular instances of our framework. We test the proposed method on standard tasks from the realms of image-, graph- and 3D shape analysis and show that it consistently outperforms previous approaches.

Proposed method: mixture model CNNs

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #572 551 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #572 551 places worse
paper 0.8159 ±0.0042
paper 0.8159 ±0.0042 Δ today 0.0845
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
157
DCNN
actual #157 vs paper #741 584 places worse
0.8680
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #741 584 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060 Δ today 0.1000
435
DeepWalk
actual #435 vs paper #843 408 places worse
0.8290
best reported
actual #435 vs paper #843 408 places worse
paper 0.6720
paper 0.6720 Δ today 0.1570
567
mixture model CNNs
0.8169 ±0.0048
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
762
Planetoid
0.7570
This paper
835
LP
actual #835 vs paper #836 1 place worse
0.6820
best reported
actual #835 vs paper #836 1 place worse
paper 0.6800
875
ManiReg
actual #875 vs paper #877 2 places worse
0.6040 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #875 vs paper #877 2 places worse
paper 0.5950

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5950 Δ today 0.0090
880
SemiEmb
0.5900
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #624 606 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #624 606 places worse
paper 0.7872 ±0.0025
78
DCNN
actual #78 vs paper #817 739 places worse
0.8980
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #817 739 places worse
paper 0.7300 ±0.0052
paper 0.7300 ±0.0052 Δ today 0.1680
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
223
DeepWalk
actual #223 vs paper #861 638 places worse
0.8652 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #861 638 places worse
paper 0.6530
613
mixture model CNNs
0.7881 ±0.0044
This paper
727
Planetoid
0.7720
This paper
826
SemiEmb
actual #826 vs paper #831 5 places worse
0.7170
best reported
actual #826 vs paper #831 5 places worse
paper 0.7110
best today: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.7110 Δ today 0.0060
831
ManiReg
actual #831 vs paper #834 3 places worse
0.7130 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #831 vs paper #834 3 places worse
paper 0.7070

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7070 Δ today 0.0060
861
LP
actual #861 vs paper #866 5 places worse
0.6580
best reported
actual #861 vs paper #866 5 places worse
paper 0.6300
paper 0.6300 Δ today 0.0280
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere