KDD 2019

DEMO-Net: Degree-specific Graph Neural Networks for Node and Graph Classification

Jun Wu, Jingrui He, Jiejun Xu

Main figure for DEMO-Net: Degree-specific Graph Neural Networks for Node and Graph Classification

Abstract

Graph data widely exist in many high-impact applications. Inspired by the success of deep learning in grid-structured data, graph neural network models have been proposed to learn powerful node-level or graph-level representation. However, most of the existing graph neural networks suffer from the following limitations: (1) there is limited analysis regarding the graph convolution properties, such as seed-oriented, degree-aware and order-free; (2) the node's degree-specific graph structure is not explicitly expressed in graph convolution for distinguishing structure-aware node neighborhoods; (3) the theoretical explanation regarding the graph-level pooling schemes is unclear. To address these problems, we propose a generic degree-specific graph neural network named DEMO-Net\ motivated by Weisfeiler-Lehman graph isomorphism test that recursively identifies 1-hop neighborhood structures. In order to explicitly capture the graph topology integrated with node attributes, we argue that graph convolution should have three properties: seed-oriented, degree-aware, order-free. To this end, we propose multi-task graph convolution where each task represents node representation learning for nodes with a specific degree value, thus leading to preserving the degree-specific graph structure. In particular, we design two multi-task learning methods: degree-specific weight and hashing functions for graph convolution. In addition, we propose a novel graph-level pooling/readout scheme for learning graph representation provably lying in a degree-specific Hilbert kernel space. The experimental results on several node and graph classification benchmark data sets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our proposed DEMO-Net\ over state-of-the-art graph neural network models.

Proposed method: DEMO-Net

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 5 baseline values 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
55
PATCHY-SAN
actual #55 vs paper #632 577 places worse
0.9260 ±0.0420
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #632 577 places worse
paper 0.7950
239
DiffPool
actual #239 vs paper #773 534 places worse
0.8940 ±0.0460
best reported
actual #239 vs paper #773 534 places worse
paper 0.6630
paper 0.6630 Δ at pub 0.1870 Δ today 0.2310
366
deepwl
actual #366 vs paper #739 373 places worse
0.8744
best reported
actual #366 vs paper #739 373 places worse
paper 0.7330
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
586
DEMO-Net
0.8140
This paper
770
DCNN
0.6700
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
7
DiffPool
actual #7 vs paper #349 342 places worse
0.8161 ±0.0232
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #349 342 places worse
paper 0.7330
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
237
PATCHY-SAN
actual #237 vs paper #429 192 places worse
0.7510 ±0.0330
best reported
actual #237 vs paper #429 192 places worse
paper 0.7140
paper 0.7140 Δ today 0.0370
445
DEMO-Net
0.7080
This paper
470
deepwl
0.6800
This paper
501
DCNN
actual #501 vs paper #513 12 places worse
0.6130 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #501 vs paper #513 12 places worse
paper 0.5790
paper 0.5790 Δ at pub 0.0339 Δ today 0.0340
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
70
DiffPool
actual #70 vs paper #298 228 places worse
0.6253
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #298 228 places worse
paper 0.1840
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
144
deepwl
actual #144 vs paper #288 144 places worse
0.5343
best reported
actual #144 vs paper #288 144 places worse
paper 0.2100
181
DCNN
actual #181 vs paper #301 120 places worse
0.4244 ±0.0176
best reported
actual #181 vs paper #301 120 places worse
paper 0.1600
paper 0.1600 Δ at pub 0.2644
246
DEMO-Net
0.2720
This paper
300
PATCHY-SAN
0.1700
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere