NeurIPS 2020

Scattering GCN: Overcoming Oversmoothness in Graph Convolutional Networks

Yimeng Min, Frederik Wenkel, Guy Wolf

Main figure for Scattering GCN: Overcoming Oversmoothness in Graph Convolutional Networks

Abstract

Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) have shown promising results in processing graph data by extracting structure-aware features. This gave rise to extensive work in geometric deep learning, focusing on designing network architectures that ensure neuron activations conform to regularity patterns within the input graph. However, in most cases the graph structure is only accounted for by considering the similarity of activations between adjacent nodes, which limits the capabilities of such methods to discriminate between nodes in a graph. Here, we propose to augment conventional GCNs with geometric scattering transforms and residual convolutions. The former enables band-pass filtering of graph signals, thus alleviating the so-called oversmoothing often encountered in GCNs, while the latter is introduced to clear the resulting features of high-frequency noise. We establish the advantages of the presented Scattering GCN with both theoretical results establishing the complementary benefits of scattering and GCN features, as well as experimental results showing the benefits of our method compared to leading graph neural networks for semi-supervised node classification, including the recently proposed GAT network that typically alleviates oversmoothing using graph attention mechanisms.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
paper 0.8150
paper 0.8150 Δ at pub 0.0567 Δ today 0.0854
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300
287
Scattering GCN
0.8420
This paper
545
Graph scattering
0.8190
This paper
564
Partially absorbing
0.8170
This paper
590
Chebyshev
actual #590 vs paper #712 122 places worse
0.8120
best reported
actual #590 vs paper #712 122 places worse
paper 0.7810
best at pub: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.7810 Δ at pub 0.0310 Δ today 0.0310
724
MLP
0.7768
736
Label propagation
0.7730
This paper
882
Node features (SVM)
0.5800
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7250
paper 0.7250 Δ today 0.0830
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
paper 0.7030
paper 0.7030 Δ at pub 0.0090 Δ today 0.1003
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
490
Scattering GCN
0.7170
This paper
541
Partially absorbing
0.7120
This paper
617
Chebyshev
actual #617 vs paper #630 13 places worse
0.7010 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #617 vs paper #630 13 places worse
paper 0.6980

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6980 Δ at pub 0.0030
703
Graph scattering
0.6750
This paper
823
Node features (SVM)
0.6110
This paper
842
Label propagation
0.5820
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
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
paper 0.7900
paper 0.7900 Δ at pub 0.0050 Δ today 0.1396
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7900
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
533
Scattering GCN
0.7940
This paper
563
Partially absorbing
0.7920
This paper
807
Chebyshev
0.7440
This paper
832
Label propagation
0.7100
This paper
840
Graph scattering
0.6980
This paper
872
Node features (SVM)
0.4990
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is Micro-F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
HG-SCM
0.9490 ±0.0015
2
SeHGNN
0.9489 ±0.0018
3
AdvSynGNN
0.9486 ±0.0012
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #116 85 places worse
0.8859 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #116 85 places worse
paper 0.6610
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #123 87 places worse
0.8758 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #123 87 places worse
paper 0.5930
63
Scattering GCN
0.8150
This paper
65
MLP
0.8118 ±0.0020
105
GraphSAGE
0.7455 ±0.0061
115
Graph scattering
0.6940
This paper
125
Chebyshev
0.5730
This paper
126
Partially absorbing
0.5690
This paper
127
Label propagation
0.5300
This paper
128
Node features (SVM)
0.4820
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