AAAI 2019

Power up! Robust Graph Convolutional Network via Graph Powering

Ming Jin, Heng Chang, Wenwu Zhu, S. Sojoudi

Main figure for Power up! Robust Graph Convolutional Network via Graph Powering

Abstract

Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) are powerful tools for graph-structured data. However, they have been recently shown to be vulnerable to topological attacks. To enhance adversarial robustness, we go beyond spectral graph theory to robust graph theory. By challenging the classical graph Laplacian, we propose a new convolution operator that is provably robust in the spectral domain and is incorporated in the GCN architecture to improve expressivity and interpretability. By extending the original graph to a sequence of graphs, we also propose a robust training paradigm that encourages transferability across graphs that span a range of spatial and spectral characteristics. The proposed approaches are demonstrated in extensive experiments to simultaneously improve performance in both benign and adversarial situations.

Proposed method: VPN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 1 baseline value 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
0.9004
95
RGCN
actual #95 vs paper #439 344 places worse
0.8801 ±0.0047
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #439 344 places worse
paper 0.8280 ±0.0060
113
MixHop
actual #113 vs paper #536 423 places worse
0.8761 ±0.0203
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #536 423 places worse
paper 0.8190 ±0.0040
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #606 383 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #606 383 places worse
paper 0.8100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8100 Δ today 0.0409
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
490
VPN
0.8230 ±0.0030
This paper
575
vanilla GCN
0.8150
This paper
600
IGCN(AR)
0.8110
This paper
632
PowerLaplacian
0.8050
This paper
677
LNet
0.7950 ±0.0180
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
762
Planetoid
0.7570
This paper
775
ICA
0.7510
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
0.9296 ±0.0015
70
MixHop
actual #70 vs paper #383 313 places worse
0.9004 ±0.0141
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #383 313 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.6000

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8080 ±0.6000 Δ today 0.0924
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #602 461 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #602 461 places worse
paper 0.7890
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
476
VPN
0.7980 ±0.4000
This paper
543
R-GCN
0.7930 ±0.3000
This paper
586
vanilla GCN
0.7900
This paper
655
PowerLaplacian
0.7830
This paper
656
LNet
0.7830 ±0.3000
This paper
663
IGCN(AR)
0.7820
This paper
727
Planetoid
0.7720
This paper
811
ICA
0.7390
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 at pub: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.7110 Δ at pub 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
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere