SIGN: Scalable Inception Graph Neural Networks

Emanuele Rossi, Fabrizio Frasca, B. Chamberlain, Davide Eynard, M. Bronstein, Federico Monti

Main figure for SIGN: Scalable Inception Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph representation learning has recently been applied to a broad spectrum of problems ranging from computer graphics and chemistry to high energy physics and social media. The popularity of graph neural networks has sparked interest, both in academia and in industry, in developing methods that scale to very large graphs such as Facebook or Twitter social networks. In most of these approaches, the computational cost is alleviated by a sampling strategy retaining a subset of node neighbors or subgraphs at training time. In this paper we propose a new, efficient and scalable graph deep learning architecture which sidesteps the need for graph sampling by using graph convolutional filters of different size that are amenable to efficient precomputation, allowing extremely fast training and inference. Our architecture allows using different local graph operators (e.g. motif-induced adjacency matrices or Personalized Page Rank diffusion matrix) to best suit the task at hand. We conduct extensive experimental evaluation on various open benchmarks and show that our approach is competitive with other state-of-the-art architectures, while requiring a fraction of the training and inference time. Moreover, we obtain state-of-the-art results on ogbn-papers100M, the largest public graph dataset, with over 110 million nodes and 1.5 billion edges.

Proposed method: SIGN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #13 9 places worse
0.9700
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #13 9 places worse
paper 0.9660 ±0.0010
paper 0.9660 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0040
8
SIGN
0.9680
This paper
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #57 43 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #57 43 places worse
paper 0.9530 ±0.0010
27
Stochastic-GCN
0.9640 ±0.0010
This paper
23
AS-GCN
actual #23 vs paper #43 20 places worse
0.9640 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #43 20 places worse
paper 0.9580 ±0.0010
22
S-GCN
actual #22 vs paper #72 50 places worse
0.9640 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #72 50 places worse
paper 0.9490
paper 0.9490 Δ at pub 0.0150
48
ClusterGCN
actual #48 vs paper #52 4 places worse
0.9570
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #52 4 places worse
paper 0.9540 ±0.0010
58
GCN
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
0.9530 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
paper 0.9330
paper 0.9330 Δ today 0.0200
91
FastGCN
actual #91 vs paper #111 20 places worse
0.9370
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #111 20 places worse
paper 0.9240 ±0.0010
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #29 25 places worse
0.9950
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #29 25 places worse
paper 0.9810 ±0.0040
paper 0.9810 ±0.0040 Δ today 0.0140
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9850
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060
best today: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.2930 Δ today 0.4700
66
SIGN
0.9700 ±0.0030
This paper
73
Stochastic-GCN
0.9630 ±0.0100
This paper
71
S-GCN
actual #71 vs paper #89 18 places worse
0.9630 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #89 18 places worse
paper 0.8920 ±0.0150
paper 0.8920 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0710
91
ClusterGCN
0.8750 ±0.0040
This paper
92
GIN
0.8724 ±0.0002
101
GraphSAGE
actual #101 vs paper #148 47 places worse
0.7860
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #148 47 places worse
paper 0.6370 ±0.0060
paper 0.6370 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0630 Δ today 0.1490
135
AS-GCN
0.6870 ±0.0120
This paper
149
FastGCN
actual #149 vs paper #165 16 places worse
0.6370 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #149 vs paper #165 16 places worse
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320
173
MLP
0.4620

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
64
GraphSAINT
actual #64 vs paper #184 120 places worse
0.8383 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #184 120 places worse
paper 0.7908 ±0.0024
paper 0.7908 ±0.0024 Δ today 0.0475
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #225 148 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #225 148 places worse
paper 0.7760 ±0.0013
paper 0.7760 ±0.0013 Δ today 0.0550
190
ClusterGCN
0.7897 ±0.0033
This paper
276
S-GCN
0.7487 ±0.0025
This paper
313
Node2Vec
0.7249 ±0.0010
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
paper 0.6106 ±0.0008
paper 0.6106 ±0.0008 Δ today 0.0499
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
0.7910
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #60 22 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #60 22 places worse
paper 0.6511 ±0.0014
paper 0.6511 ±0.0014 Δ today 0.0125
77
S-GCN
0.6329 ±0.0019
This paper
88
Node2Vec
actual #88 vs paper #88
0.5810
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #88
paper 0.5807 ±0.0028

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5807 ±0.0028 Δ today 0.0003
95
MLP
actual #95 vs paper #96 1 place worse
0.4960 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #96 1 place worse
paper 0.4724 ±0.0031
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