ICLR 2018

FastGCN: Fast Learning with Graph Convolutional Networks via Importance Sampling

Jie Chen, Tengfei Ma, Cao Xiao

Main figure for FastGCN: Fast Learning with Graph Convolutional Networks via Importance Sampling

Abstract

The graph convolutional networks (GCN) recently proposed by Kipf and Welling are an effective graph model for semi-supervised learning. This model, however, was originally designed to be learned with the presence of both training and test data. Moreover, the recursive neighborhood expansion across layers poses time and memory challenges for training with large, dense graphs. To relax the requirement of simultaneous availability of test data, we interpret graph convolutions as integral transforms of embedding functions under probability measures. Such an interpretation allows for the use of Monte Carlo approaches to consistently estimate the integrals, which in turn leads to a batched training scheme as we propose in this work---FastGCN. Enhanced with importance sampling, FastGCN not only is efficient for training but also generalizes well for inference. We show a comprehensive set of experiments to demonstrate its effectiveness compared with GCN and related models. In particular, training is orders of magnitude more efficient while predictions remain comparably accurate.

Proposed method: FastGCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
0.9660
69
GraphSAGE-mean
actual #69 vs paper #76 7 places worse
0.9500
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #76 7 places worse
paper 0.9460
paper 0.9460 Δ at pub 0.0040
91
FastGCN
0.9370
This paper
107
GraphSAGE-GCN
actual #107 vs paper #112 5 places worse
0.9300
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #112 5 places worse
paper 0.9230
paper 0.9230 Δ at pub 0.0070
108
GCN (batched)
0.9300
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 result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)