ICLR 2017

Graph Attention Networks

Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, Yoshua Bengio

Main figure for Graph Attention Networks

Abstract

We present graph attention networks (GATs), novel neural network architectures that operate on graph-structured data, leveraging masked self-attentional layers to address the shortcomings of prior methods based on graph convolutions or their approximations. By stacking layers in which nodes are able to attend over their neighborhoods' features, we enable (implicitly) specifying different weights to different nodes in a neighborhood, without requiring any kind of costly matrix operation (such as inversion) or depending on knowing the graph structure upfront. In this way, we address several key challenges of spectral-based graph neural networks simultaneously, and make our model readily applicable to inductive as well as transductive problems. Our GAT models have achieved or matched state-of-the-art results across four established transductive and inductive graph benchmarks: the Cora, Citeseer and Pubmed citation network datasets, as well as a protein-protein interaction dataset (wherein test graphs remain unseen during training).

Proposed method: GAT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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
0.9004
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070
508
MoNet
actual #508 vs paper #558 50 places worse
0.8170 ±0.0050
actual #508 vs paper #558 50 places worse
paper 0.8170 ±0.0050

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8170 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0001
581
GCN-64
0.8140 ±0.0050
This paper
590
Chebyshev
0.8120
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #890 166 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #890 166 places worse
paper 0.5510
paper 0.5510 Δ today 0.2258
775
ICA
0.7510
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
0.9296 ±0.0015
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #827 617 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #827 617 places worse
paper 0.7140
paper 0.7140 Δ today 0.1550
446
MoNet
actual #446 vs paper #614 168 places worse
0.8006 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #446 vs paper #614 168 places worse
paper 0.7880 ±0.0030
600
GCN-64
0.7900 ±0.0030
This paper
807
Chebyshev
0.7440
This paper
811
ICA
0.7390
This paper
826
SemiEmb
actual #826 vs paper #826
0.7170
actual #826 vs paper #826
paper 0.7170

PPI

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1-micro; the dataset default is F1. Values below use F1-micro only.

Sorted by F1-micro. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1-micro ↑Paper
1
GAT
0.9730 ±0.0020
This paper
2
GraphSAGE*
0.7680
This paper
3
LaGraph
0.7460
4
MLP
0.4220
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere