Hierarchical Representation Learning in Graph Neural Networks with Node Decimation Pooling

F. Bianchi, Daniele Grattarola, L. Livi, C. Alippi

Main figure for Hierarchical Representation Learning in Graph Neural Networks with Node Decimation Pooling

Abstract

In graph neural networks (GNNs), pooling operators compute local summaries of input graphs to capture their global properties, and they are fundamental for building deep GNNs that learn hierarchical representations. In this work, we propose the Node Decimation Pooling (NDP), a pooling operator for GNNs that generates coarser graphs while preserving the overall graph topology. During training, the GNN learns new node representations and fits them to a pyramid of coarsened graphs, which is computed offline in a pre-processing stage. NDP consists of three steps. First, a node decimation procedure selects the nodes belonging to one side of the partition identified by a spectral algorithm that approximates the solution. Afterwards, the selected nodes are connected with Kron reduction to form the coarsened graph. Finally, since the resulting graph is very dense, we apply a sparsification procedure that prunes the adjacency matrix of the coarsened graph to reduce the computational cost in the GNN. Notably, we show that it is possible to remove many edges without significantly altering the graph structure. Experimental results show that NDP is more efficient compared to state-of-the-art graph pooling operators while reaching, at the same time, competitive performance on a significant variety of graph classification tasks.

Proposed method: ndp

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
7
DiffPool
actual #7 vs paper #372 365 places worse
0.8161 ±0.0232
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #372 365 places worse
paper 0.7280 ±0.0350
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
190
WL
actual #190 vs paper #436 246 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #436 246 places worse
paper 0.7120 ±0.0260
paper 0.7120 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0440
348
ndp
0.7340 ±0.0310
This paper
367
Graclus
actual #367 vs paper #454 87 places worse
0.7300 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #367 vs paper #454 87 places worse
paper 0.7030 ±0.0260

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7030 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0270
382
Flat
0.7260 ±0.0480
This paper
428
NMF
0.7160 ±0.0410
This paper
461
Top-k
0.6960 ±0.0330
This paper
466
DENSE
0.6870 ±0.0330
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
18
WL
actual #18 vs paper #215 197 places worse
0.6950 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #215 197 places worse
paper 0.3360 ±0.0410
paper 0.3360 ±0.0410 Δ at pub 0.2545 Δ today 0.3590
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
70
DiffPool
actual #70 vs paper #256 186 places worse
0.2460 ±0.0530
actual #70 vs paper #256 186 places worse
paper 0.2460 ±0.0530

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2460 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.0620 Δ today 0.3793
83
Graclus
actual #83 vs paper #182 99 places worse
0.6100 ±0.0660
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #182 99 places worse
paper 0.4200 ±0.0670
paper 0.4200 ±0.0670 Δ today 0.1900
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
152
Flat
0.5200 ±0.1230
This paper
168
DENSE
0.4570 ±0.0990
This paper
171
Top-k
actual #171 vs paper #222 51 places worse
0.4550 ±0.1050
best reported
actual #171 vs paper #222 51 places worse
paper 0.3140 ±0.0680

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3140 ±0.0680 Δ today 0.1410
173
ndp
0.4450 ±0.0740
This paper
188
NMF
0.3990 ±0.0360
This paper

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Schrödinger
0.9913 ±0.0004
2
CNN
0.9907 ±0.0007
3
MPNN
0.9895 ±0.0006
11
GatedGCN
0.9855 ±0.0002
32
GIN
0.9833 ±0.0011
103
ndp
0.9709 ±0.0001
This paper
113
Graclus
0.9621 ±0.0018
This paper
126
MLP
0.9534 ±0.0014
133
NMF
0.9415 ±0.0017
This paper
152
DiffPool
0.2400
This paper
154
Top-k
0.1100
This paper
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