Edge Contraction Pooling for Graph Neural Networks
Abstract
research has concentrated on improving convolutional layers, with little attention paid to developing graph pooling layers. Yet pooling layers can enable to reason over abstracted groups of nodes instead of single nodes. To close this gap, we propose a graph pooling layer relying on the notion of edge contraction: EdgePool learns a localized and sparse hard pooling transform. We show that EdgePool outperforms alternative pooling methods, can be easily integrated into most models, and improves performance on both node and graph classification.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 best reported | best at pub: Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric (ICLR 2019) best today: Scalable Expressiveness through Preprocessed Graph Perturbations (2024) |
| 30 | GIN | 0.8220
±0.0210 best reported | best today: Scalable Expressiveness through Preprocessed Graph Perturbations (2024) |
| 33 | DiffPool | 0.8213
±0.0043 best reported | best at pub: Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric (ICLR 2019) best today: Scalable Graph Compressed Convolutions (2024) |
| 39 | SAGPool | 0.8176
±0.0157 best reported | best today: Embedding Graphs on Grassmann Manifold (2022) |
| 57 | TopKPool | 0.8140
±0.0094 best reported | best today: Embedding Graphs on Grassmann Manifold (2022) |
| 137 | SAGE | 0.7970
±0.0170 best reported | best at pub: Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric (ICLR 2019) |
| 136 | GraphSAGE | 0.7970
±0.0170 | |
| 150 | EdgePool | 0.7920
±0.0166 best reported | best today: Embedding Graphs on Grassmann Manifold (2022) |
| 151 | MLP | 0.7920
±0.0240 best reported | best today: Simplifying Graph Convolutional Networks with Redundancy-Free Neighbors (2025) |
| 262 | GIN0 | 0.7410
±0.0160 | This paper |
| 319 | Base Model | 0.6540
±0.0150 | This paper |
| 324 | SAGE nacc | 0.6410
±0.0210 | This paper |
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best)
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
