Auto-GNN: Neural Architecture Search of Graph Neural Networks

Kaixiong Zhou, Qingquan Song, Xiao Huang, Xia Hu

Main figure for 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

#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
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070
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
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070
paper 0.7250 ±0.0070 Δ today 0.0830
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
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
actual #617 vs paper #630 13 places worse
0.7010 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #617 vs paper #630 13 places worse
paper 0.6980

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6980 Δ at pub 0.0030
626
Random-with share
0.6990 ±0.0170
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 #583 565 places worse
0.7905
actual #18 vs paper #583 565 places worse
paper 0.7905
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
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
#ModelF1 ↑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
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.9732 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.9730 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9730 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0002
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
actual #157 vs paper #158 1 place worse
0.6020
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #158 1 place worse
paper 0.6000
158
GraphSAGE-GCN
actual #158 vs paper #167 9 places worse
0.6010
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #167 9 places worse
paper 0.5000
159
GraphSAGE-mean
0.5980
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere