AAAI 2019

Measuring and Relieving the Over-smoothing Problem for Graph Neural Networks from the Topological View

Deli Chen, Yankai Lin, Wei Li, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, Xu Sun

Main figure for Measuring and Relieving the Over-smoothing Problem for Graph Neural Networks from the Topological View

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved promising performance on a wide range of graph-based tasks. Despite their success, one severe limitation of GNNs is the over-smoothing issue (indistinguishable representations of nodes in different classes). In this work, we present a systematic and quantitative study on the over-smoothing issue of GNNs. First, we introduce two quantitative metrics, MAD and MADGap, to measure the smoothness and over-smoothness of the graph nodes representations, respectively. Then, we verify that smoothing is the nature of GNNs and the critical factor leading to over-smoothness is the low information-to-noise ratio of the message received by the nodes, which is partially determined by the graph topology. Finally, we propose two methods to alleviate the over-smoothing issue from the topological view: (1) MADReg which adds a MADGap-based regularizer to the training objective; (2) AdaEdge which optimizes the graph topology based on the model predictions. Extensive experiments on $7$ widely-used graph datasets with $10$ typical GNN models show that the two proposed methods are effective for relieving the over-smoothing issue, thus improving the performance of various GNN models.

Proposed method: acc

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #456 454 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #456 454 places worse
paper 0.8970 ±0.0170
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #420 412 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #420 412 places worse
paper 0.9060 ±0.0070
56
GraphSAGE
actual #56 vs paper #442 386 places worse
0.9508 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #442 386 places worse
paper 0.9010 ±0.0140
paper 0.9010 ±0.0140 Δ today 0.0498
374
acc
0.9150 ±0.0050
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
429
FeaSt
0.9050 ±0.0060
This paper
449
ARMA
actual #449 vs paper #500 51 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0495
best reported
actual #449 vs paper #500 51 places worse
paper 0.8640 ±0.0300

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8640 ±0.0300 Δ today 0.0360
462
ChebGCN
0.8960 ±0.0160
This paper
473
DNA
0.8910 ±0.0130
This paper
495
HyperGraph
0.8750 ±0.0070
This paper
552
GGNN
0.7410 ±0.1230
This paper
573
HighOrder
0.2610 ±0.1240
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #409 407 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #409 407 places worse
paper 0.8170 ±0.0070
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #413 410 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #413 410 places worse
paper 0.8140 ±0.0150
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #428 382 places worse
0.9120 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #428 382 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0100
paper 0.8020 ±0.0100 Δ today 0.1100
320
MLP
0.8463
356
ARMA
actual #356 vs paper #481 125 places worse
0.8383 ±0.0058
best reported
actual #356 vs paper #481 125 places worse
paper 0.6380 ±0.1890

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6380 ±0.1890 Δ today 0.2003
395
acc
0.8240 ±0.0110
This paper
421
ChebGCN
0.8080 ±0.0240
This paper
422
FeaSt
0.8080 ±0.0130
This paper
441
DNA
0.7820 ±0.0290
This paper
484
HyperGraph
0.5870 ±0.2210
This paper
494
GGNN
0.4240 ±0.2670
This paper
502
HighOrder
0.2630 ±0.1270
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
43
GraphSAGE
actual #43 vs paper #240 197 places worse
0.9649 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #240 197 places worse
paper 0.9300 ±0.0040
paper 0.9300 ±0.0040 Δ today 0.0349
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
222
DNA (+AE)
0.9330 ±0.0040
This paper
242
GCN (+AE)
0.9300 ±0.0110
This paper
249
ARMA (+AE)
0.9260 ±0.0100
This paper
259
HyperGraph (+AE)
0.9220 ±0.0140
This paper
265
GGNN (+AE)
0.9160 ±0.0070
This paper
266
GAT (+AE)
0.9140 ±0.0100
This paper
270
HighOrder (+AE)
0.9090 ±0.0060
This paper
275
FeaSt
0.8840 ±0.0020
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere