Understanding Isomorphism Bias in Graph Data Sets

S. Ivanov, S. Sviridov, E. Burnaev

Main figure for Understanding Isomorphism Bias in Graph Data Sets

Abstract

In recent years there has been a rapid increase in classification methods on graph structured data. Both in graph kernels and graph neural networks, one of the implicit assumptions of successful state-of-the-art models was that incorporating graph isomorphism features into the architecture leads to better empirical performance. However, as we discover in this work, commonly used data sets for graph classification have repeating instances which cause the problem of isomorphism bias, i.e. artificially increasing the accuracy of the models by memorizing target information from the training set. This prevents fair competition of the algorithms and raises a question of the validity of the obtained results. We analyze 54 data sets, previously extensively used for graph-related tasks, on the existence of isomorphism bias, give a set of recommendations to machine learning practitioners to properly set up their models, and open source new data sets for the future experiments.

Proposed method: NN-PH

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 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
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
135
WL-PH
0.9070
This paper
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #412 253 places worse
0.8620
actual #159 vs paper #412 253 places worse
paper 0.8620

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8620 Δ at pub 0.0020
395
WL-P
0.8700
This paper
401
NN-PH
0.8670
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
424
V-PH
0.8590
This paper
433
NN-P
0.8560
This paper
439
V
actual #439 vs paper #504 65 places worse
0.8540 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #439 vs paper #504 65 places worse
paper 0.8360
paper 0.8360 Δ at pub 0.0180
528
NN
0.8290
This paper
537
V-P
0.8270
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
190
WL
actual #190 vs paper #275 85 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #275 85 places worse
paper 0.7470
paper 0.7470 Δ at pub 0.0090
260
WL-PH
0.7490
This paper
304
NN-PH
0.7420
This paper
314
WL-P
0.7400
This paper
327
NN
0.7370
This paper
371
NN-P
0.7290
This paper
372
V-PH
0.7290
This paper
381
V
actual #381 vs paper #381
0.7260
actual #381 vs paper #381
paper 0.7260
paper 0.7260 Δ at pub 0.0048
413
V-P
0.7190
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published