ICLR 2019

GraphZoom: A Multi-level Spectral Approach for Accurate and Scalable Graph Embedding

Chenhui Deng, Zhiqiang Zhao, Yongyu Wang, Zhiru Zhang, Zhuo Feng

Main figure for GraphZoom: A Multi-level Spectral Approach for Accurate and Scalable Graph Embedding

Abstract

Graph embedding techniques have been increasingly deployed in a multitude of different applications that involve learning on non-Euclidean data. However, existing graph embedding models either fail to incorporate node attribute information during training or suffer from node attribute noise, which compromises the accuracy. Moreover, very few of them scale to large graphs due to their high computational complexity and memory usage. In this paper we propose GraphZoom, a multi-level framework for improving both accuracy and scalability of unsupervised graph embedding algorithms.github.com/cornell-zhang/GraphZoom. GraphZoom first performs graph fusion to generate a new graph that effectively encodes the topology of the original graph and the node attribute information. This fused graph is then repeatedly coarsened into much smaller graphs by merging nodes with high spectral similarities. GraphZoom allows any existing embedding methods to be applied to the coarsened graph, before it progressively refine the embeddings obtained at the coarsest level to increasingly finer graphs. We have evaluated our approach on a number of popular graph datasets for both transductive and inductive tasks. Our experiments show that GraphZoom can substantially increase the classification accuracy and significantly accelerate the entire graph embedding process by up to $40.8 $, when compared to the state-of-the-art unsupervised embedding methods.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 9 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
0.9004
177
DGI
actual #177 vs paper #486 309 places worse
0.8630 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #177 vs paper #486 309 places worse
paper 0.8230
paper 0.8230 Δ today 0.0400
435
DeepWalk
actual #435 vs paper #810 375 places worse
0.8290
best reported
actual #435 vs paper #810 375 places worse
paper 0.7140
paper 0.7140 Δ at pub 0.1150
645
Node2Vec
actual #645 vs paper #810 165 places worse
0.8030
best reported
actual #645 vs paper #810 165 places worse
paper 0.7150
paper 0.7150 Δ at pub 0.0880
724
MLP
0.7768
804
HARP(N2V)
0.7230
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
0.8033 ±0.0088
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
paper 0.7180
paper 0.7180 Δ today 0.0710
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
554
GZoom(DGI, l=1)
0.7110
This paper
597
GZoom_F+MILE(DGI)
0.7040
This paper
627
MILE(DGI, l=1)
0.6990
This paper
692
DeepWalk
actual #692 vs paper #871 179 places worse
0.4700
actual #692 vs paper #871 179 places worse
paper 0.4700
paper 0.4700 Δ at pub 0.0380 Δ today 0.2085
766
Node2Vec
actual #766 vs paper #874 108 places worse
0.6552 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #766 vs paper #874 108 places worse
paper 0.4580
880
HARP(N2V)
0.4480
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
0.9296 ±0.0015
204
DGI
actual #204 vs paper #745 541 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #204 vs paper #745 541 places worse
paper 0.7680
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
223
DeepWalk
actual #223 vs paper #838 615 places worse
0.6990
actual #223 vs paper #838 615 places worse
paper 0.6990
251
Node2Vec
actual #251 vs paper #830 579 places worse
0.8520 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #251 vs paper #830 579 places worse
paper 0.7130
695
GZoom(N2V, l=2)
0.7780
This paper
767
MILE(DGI, l=1)
0.7610
This paper
775
GZoom_F+MILE(DGI)
0.7590
This paper
835
HARP(DW)
0.7060
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
0.9660
53
GraphSAGE-LSTM
actual #53 vs paper #116 63 places worse
0.9540
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #116 63 places worse
paper 0.9070
paper 0.9070 Δ at pub 0.0470
69
GraphSAGE-mean
actual #69 vs paper #117 48 places worse
0.9500
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #117 48 places worse
paper 0.8970
paper 0.8970 Δ at pub 0.0530
76
GraphSAGE-pool
actual #76 vs paper #118 42 places worse
0.9480
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #118 42 places worse
paper 0.8920
paper 0.8920 Δ at pub 0.0560
107
GraphSAGE-GCN
actual #107 vs paper #115 8 places worse
0.9300
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #115 8 places worse
paper 0.9080
paper 0.9080 Δ at pub 0.0220
111
GZoom(GSAGE-mean, l=1)
0.9250
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
21
GCN
0.9850
152
GZoom(GSAGE-GCN, l=1)
0.6210
This paper
154
GraphSAGE-LSTM
actual #154 vs paper #159 5 places worse
0.6120
best reported
actual #154 vs paper #159 5 places worse
paper 0.5960
paper 0.5960 Δ at pub 0.0160 Δ today 0.0160
157
GraphSAGE-pool
actual #157 vs paper #157
0.6020
actual #157 vs paper #157
paper 0.6020
paper 0.6020 Δ at pub 0.0020
158
GraphSAGE-GCN
actual #158 vs paper #158
0.6010
actual #158 vs paper #158
paper 0.6010
paper 0.6010 Δ at pub 0.1010
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere