NeurIPS 2019

Graph Neural Tangent Kernel: Fusing Graph Neural Networks with Graph Kernels

Simon S. Du, Kangcheng Hou, Barnab\'as P\'oczos, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Ruosong Wang, Keyulu Xu

Main figure for Graph Neural Tangent Kernel: Fusing Graph Neural Networks with Graph Kernels

Abstract

While graph kernels (GKs) are easy to train and enjoy provable theoretical guarantees, their practical performances are limited by their expressive power, as the kernel function often depends on hand-crafted combinatorial features of graphs. Compared to graph kernels, graph neural networks (GNNs) usually achieve better practical performance, as GNNs use multi-layer architectures and non-linear activation functions to extract high-order information of graphs as features. However, due to the large number of hyper-parameters and the non-convex nature of the training procedure, GNNs are harder to train. Theoretical guarantees of GNNs are also not well-understood. Furthermore, the expressive power of GNNs scales with the number of parameters, and thus it is hard to exploit the full power of GNNs when computing resources are limited. The current paper presents a new class of graph kernels, Graph Neural Tangent Kernels (GNTKs), which correspond to infinitely wide multi-layer GNNs trained by gradient descent. GNTKs enjoy the full expressive power of GNNs and inherit advantages of GKs. Theoretically, we show GNTKs provably learn a class of smooth functions on graphs. Empirically, we test GNTKs on graph classification datasets and show they achieve strong performance.

Proposed method: GNTK

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #432 369 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #432 369 places worse
paper 0.8560 ±0.0580

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8560 ±0.0580 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0660
158
GraphSAGE
actual #158 vs paper #446 288 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0780
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #446 288 places worse
paper 0.8510 ±0.0760

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8510 ±0.0760 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0530
175
RetGK
0.9030 ±0.0110
This paper
191
GNTK
0.9000 ±0.0850
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #214 211 places worse
0.8020 ±0.0200
actual #3 vs paper #214 211 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0200
paper 0.8020 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.0770 Δ today 0.1707
9
WL subtree
0.8600 ±0.0180
This paper
31
RetGK
0.8450 ±0.0020
This paper
36
GNTK
0.8420 ±0.0150
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
actual #131 vs paper #329 198 places worse
0.7770 ±0.0150
actual #131 vs paper #329 198 places worse
paper 0.7770 ±0.0150
paper 0.7770 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0450 Δ today 0.0430
289
PatchySan
0.7860 ±0.0190
This paper
373
DGCNN
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
0.7650 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
paper 0.7440
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
13
GNTK
0.8360 ±0.0100
This paper
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #156 133 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #156 133 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0180
paper 0.7900 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0160 Δ today 0.0360
30
GIN
0.8220 ±0.0210
82
RetGK
0.8100 ±0.0030
This paper
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
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