Adaptive Propagation Graph Convolutional Network

Indro Spinelli, Simone Scardapane, A. Uncini

Main figure for Adaptive Propagation Graph Convolutional Network

Abstract

Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) are a family of neural network models that perform inference on graph data by interleaving vertex-wise operations and message-passing exchanges across nodes. Concerning the latter, two key questions arise: (i) how to design a differentiable exchange protocol (e.g., a $1$-hop Laplacian smoothing in the original GCN), and (ii) how to characterize the trade-off in complexity with respect to the local updates. In this paper, we show that state-of-the-art results can be achieved by adapting the number of communication steps independently at every node. In particular, we endow each node with a halting unit (inspired by Graves' adaptive computation time) that after every exchange decides whether to continue communicating or not. We show that the proposed adaptive propagation GCN (AP-GCN) achieves superior or similar results to the best proposed models so far on a number of benchmarks, while requiring a small overhead in terms of additional parameters. We also investigate a regularization term to enforce an explicit trade-off between communication and accuracy. The code for the AP-GCN experiments is released as an open-source library.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #437 435 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #437 435 places worse
paper 0.7862 ±0.0030
paper 0.7862 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0328 Δ today 0.1550
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #447 444 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #447 444 places worse
paper 0.7608 ±0.0047
paper 0.7608 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0572 Δ today 0.1790
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #428 370 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #428 370 places worse
paper 0.8017 ±0.0031
paper 0.8017 ±0.0031 Δ today 0.1076
308
AP-GCN
0.8518 ±0.0023
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
356
ARMA
actual #356 vs paper #423 67 places worse
0.8075 ±0.0037
actual #356 vs paper #423 67 places worse
paper 0.8075 ±0.0037

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8075 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.1695 Δ today 0.0308
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (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