Auto-GNN: Neural Architecture Search of Graph Neural Networks
Abstract
Graph neural networks (GNN) has been successfully applied to operate on the graph-structured data. Given a specific scenario, rich human expertise and tremendous laborious trials are usually required to identify a suitable GNN architecture. It is because the performance of a GNN architecture is significantly affected by the choice of graph convolution components, such as aggregate function and hidden dimension. Neural architecture search (NAS) has shown its potential in discovering effective deep architectures for learning tasks in image and language modeling. However, existing NAS algorithms cannot be directly applied to the GNN search problem. First, the search space of GNN is different from the ones in existing NAS work. Second, the representation learning capacity of GNN architecture changes obviously with slight architecture modifications. It affects the search efficiency of traditional search methods. Third, widely used techniques in NAS such as parameter sharing might become unstable in GNN. To bridge the gap, we propose the automated graph neural networks (AGNN) framework, which aims to find an optimal GNN architecture within a predefined search space. A reinforcement learning based controller is designed to greedily validate architectures via small steps. AGNN has a novel parameter sharing strategy that enables homogeneous architectures to share parameters, based on a carefully-designed homogeneity definition. Experiments on real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that the GNN architecture identified by AGNN achieves the best performance, comparing with existing handcrafted models and tradistional search methods.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 4 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 best reported | best at pub: SplineCNN: Fast Geometric Deep Learning with Continuous B-Spline Kernels (2017) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 44 | GAT | 0.8897
±0.0014 best reported | best at pub: Topology Adaptive Graph Convolutional Networks (2017) |
| 391 | LGCN | 0.8330
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 392 | GraphNAS-with share | 0.8330
±0.0060 | This paper |
| 448 | AGNN-with share | 0.8270
±0.0060 | This paper |
| 489 | Random-with share | 0.8230
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 590 | Chebyshev | 0.8120 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Topology Adaptive Graph Convolutional Networks (2017) best today: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric (ICLR 2019) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 327 | LGCN | 0.7300
±0.0060 | This paper |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 363 | AGNN-with share | 0.7270
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 410 | GraphNAS-with share | 0.7240
±0.0130 | This paper |
| 617 | Chebyshev | 0.7010
±0.0080 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks With Convolutional ARMA Filters (2019) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 626 | Random-with share | 0.6990
±0.0170 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.7905 | prev best: Topology Adaptive Graph Convolutional Networks (2017) |
| 20 | GAT | 0.9233
±0.0018 best reported | best at pub: Topology Adaptive Graph Convolutional Networks (2017) |
| 116 | SAGE | 0.8881
±0.0015 | |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 505 | LGCN | 0.7950
±0.0020 | This paper |
| 595 | AGNN-with share | 0.7900
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 669 | GraphNAS-with share | 0.7810
±0.0080 | This paper |
| 687 | Random-with share | 0.7790
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 807 | Chebyshev | 0.7440 | This paper |
| # | Model | F1 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GAMLP(JK) | 0.9982
±0.0001 | |
| 2 | GraphCON-GCN | 0.9960 | |
| 3 | GCNII | 0.9953
±0.0001 | |
| 13 | AGNN-with share | 0.9910
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9850 | |
| 48 | Random-with share | 0.9770
±0.0110 | This paper |
| 57 | GAT | 0.9732
±0.0032 best reported | best at pub: GaAN: Gated Attention Networks for Learning on Large and Spatiotemporal Graphs (2018) best today: HAT-GAE: Self-Supervised Graph Auto-encoders with Hierarchical Adaptive Masking and Trainable Corruption (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 76 | GraphNAS-with share | 0.9600
±0.0360 | This paper |
| 103 | LGCN | 0.7720
±0.0020 | This paper |
| 154 | GraphSAGE-LSTM | 0.6120 | This paper |
| 157 | GraphSAGE-pool | 0.6020 best reported | best at pub: Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs (NeurIPS 2017) best today: GraphZoom: A Multi-level Spectral Approach for Accurate and Scalable Graph Embedding (ICLR 2019) |
| 158 | GraphSAGE-GCN | 0.6010 best reported | best at pub: Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs (NeurIPS 2017) best today: GraphZoom: A Multi-level Spectral Approach for Accurate and Scalable Graph Embedding (ICLR 2019) |
| 159 | GraphSAGE-mean | 0.5980 | This paper |
| 173 | MLP | 0.4620 |
