Fast Haar Transforms for Graph Neural Networks

Ming Li, Zheng Ma, Yu Guang Wang, Xiaosheng Zhuang

Main figure for Fast Haar Transforms for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have become a topic of intense research recently due to their powerful capability in high-dimensional classification and regression tasks for graph-structured data. However, as GNNs typically define the graph convolution by the orthonormal basis for the graph Laplacian, they suffer from high computational cost when the graph size is large. This paper introduces Haar basis which is a sparse and localized orthonormal system for a coarse-grained chain on graph. The graph convolution under Haar basis, called Haar convolution, can be defined accordingly for GNNs. The sparsity and locality of the Haar basis allow Fast Haar Transforms (FHTs) on graph, by which a fast evaluation of Haar convolution between graph data and filters can be achieved. We conduct experiments on GNNs equipped with Haar convolution, which demonstrates state-of-the-art results on graph-based regression and node classification tasks.

Proposed method: HANet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 7 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
139
ChebNet
actual #139 vs paper #589 450 places worse
0.8712 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #589 450 places worse
paper 0.8120
paper 0.8120 Δ at pub 0.0592
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
542
HANet
0.8190
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #904 180 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #904 180 places worse
paper 0.4650
best at pub: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.4650 Δ at pub 0.0860 Δ today 0.3118
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
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
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
232
ChebNet
actual #232 vs paper #630 398 places worse
0.7399 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #232 vs paper #630 398 places worse
paper 0.6980
paper 0.6980 Δ today 0.0419
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #854 504 places worse
0.7289 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #854 504 places worse
paper 0.5510
paper 0.5510 Δ today 0.1779
618
HANet
0.7010
This paper
649
ICA
0.6910
This paper
681
SemiEmb
actual #681 vs paper #833 152 places worse
0.6810 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #681 vs paper #833 152 places worse
paper 0.5960
paper 0.5960 Δ at pub 0.0850
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
697
ManiReg
actual #697 vs paper #831 134 places worse
0.6770 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #697 vs paper #831 134 places worse
paper 0.6010
paper 0.6010 Δ at pub 0.0760
782
Planetoid
0.6470
This paper
877
LP
0.4530
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
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
199
ChebNet
actual #199 vs paper #806 607 places worse
0.8718 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #199 vs paper #806 607 places worse
paper 0.7440
paper 0.7440 Δ today 0.1278
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #827 617 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #827 617 places worse
paper 0.7140
best at pub: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.7140 Δ today 0.1550
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
542
HANet
0.7930
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