Graph U-Nets

Hongyang Gao, Shuiwang Ji

Main figure for Graph U-Nets

Abstract

We consider the problem of representation learning for graph data. Given images are special cases of graphs with nodes lie on 2D lattices, graph embedding tasks have a natural correspondence with image pixel-wise prediction tasks such as segmentation. While encoder-decoder architectures like U-Nets have been successfully applied to image pixel-wise prediction tasks, similar methods are lacking for graph data. This is because pooling and up-sampling operations are not natural on graph data. To address these challenges, we propose novel graph pooling and unpooling operations. The gPool layer adaptively selects some nodes to form a smaller graph based on their scalar projection values. We further propose the gUnpool layer as the inverse operation of the gPool layer. Based on our proposed methods, we develop an encoder-decoder model, known as the graph U-Nets. Experimental results on node classification and graph classification tasks demonstrate that our methods achieve consistently better performance than previous models. Along this direction, we extend our methods by integrating attention mechanisms. Based on attention operators, we proposed attention-based pooling and unpooling layers, which can better capture graph topology information. The empirical results on graph classification tasks demonstrate the promising capability of our methods.

Proposed method: g-U-Nets

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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 #573 552 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
paper 0.8150
paper 0.8150 Δ at pub 0.0567 Δ today 0.0854
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
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
261
g-U-Nets
0.8440 ±0.0060
This paper
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
590
Chebyshev
0.8120
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
762
Planetoid
0.7570
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070 Δ today 0.0830
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
paper 0.7030
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
306
g-U-Nets
0.7320 ±0.0050
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
617
Chebyshev
actual #617 vs paper #630 13 places worse
0.7010 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #617 vs paper #630 13 places worse
paper 0.6980

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6980 Δ at pub 0.0030
692
DeepWalk
actual #692 vs paper #883 191 places worse
0.6785 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #692 vs paper #883 191 places worse
paper 0.4320
782
Planetoid
0.6470
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 #585 567 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
paper 0.7900
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
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
494
g-U-Nets
0.7960 ±0.0020
This paper
727
Planetoid
0.7720
This paper
807
Chebyshev
0.7440
This paper

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
34
DiffPool-Det
0.8213
This paper
33
DiffPool
actual #33 vs paper #241 208 places worse
0.8213 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #241 208 places worse
paper 0.7548
paper 0.7548 Δ at pub 0.0342 Δ today 0.0665
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
191
DGCNN
actual #191 vs paper #269 78 places worse
0.7376
actual #191 vs paper #269 78 places worse
paper 0.7376
paper 0.7376 Δ at pub 0.0006 Δ today 0.0383
192
g-U-Nets
0.7756
This paper
237
DiffPool-NoLP
0.7558
This paper
281
PSCN
0.7260
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
4
g-U-Nets
actual #4 vs paper #6 2 places worse
0.8300
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #6 2 places worse
paper 0.8243
best today: Orthogonal Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.8243 Δ today 0.0057
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
18
DiffPool
0.8064
This paper
24
DiffPool-NoLP
0.7998
This paper
37
DGCNN
0.7937
This paper
101
PSCN
actual #101 vs paper #113 12 places worse
0.7712 ±0.0241
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #113 12 places worse
paper 0.7627
paper 0.7627 Δ at pub 0.0085 Δ today 0.0085
117
DiffPool-Det
actual #117 vs paper #129 12 places worse
0.7615 ±0.0105
best reported
actual #117 vs paper #129 12 places worse
paper 0.7547

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7547 Δ today 0.0068
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere