Optimal Transport Graph Neural Networks

Gary B'ecigneul, O. Ganea, Benson Chen, R. Barzilay, T. Jaakkola

Main figure for Optimal Transport Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Current graph neural network (GNN) architectures naively average or sum node embeddings into an aggregated graph representation---potentially losing structural or semantic information. We here introduce OT-GNN, a model that computes graph embeddings using parametric prototypes that highlight key facets of different graph aspects. Towards this goal, we successfully combine optimal transport (OT) with parametric graph models. Graph representations are obtained from Wasserstein distances between the set of GNN node embeddings and ``prototype'' point clouds as free parameters. We theoretically prove that, unlike traditional sum aggregation, our function class on point clouds satisfies a fundamental universal approximation theorem. Empirically, we address an inherent collapse optimization issue by proposing a noise contrastive regularizer to steer the model towards truly exploiting the OT geometry. Finally, we outperform popular methods on several molecular property prediction tasks, while exhibiting smoother graph representations.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
ProtoMol
0.9140 ±0.0030
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
3
MemGNN
0.9070
20
D-MPNN
actual #20 vs paper #40 20 places worse
0.8780 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #40 20 places worse
paper 0.8650 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8650 ±0.0130 Δ today 0.0130
24
ProtoW-L2
0.8730 ±0.0150
This paper
29
ProtoW-Dot
0.8710 ±0.0140
This paper
31
Fingerprint+MLP
0.8700 ±0.0070
This paper
41
ProtoS-L2
0.8650 ±0.0100
This paper
43
GIN
actual #43 vs paper #50 7 places worse
0.8646 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #50 7 places worse
paper 0.8610 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8610 ±0.0130 Δ today 0.0036
52
GAT
0.8600 ±0.0110
This paper
54
D-MPNN+TopK Pool
0.8600 ±0.0330
This paper
63
D-MPNN+SAG Pool
0.8550 ±0.0150
This paper
64
GCN
0.8540 ±0.0110
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
Graphormer-SPIS
0.4840 ±0.0050
2
Graphormer-SPD
0.4920 ±0.0040
3
conan-FGW
0.5140 ±0.0190
5
GAT
actual #5 vs paper #30 25 places worse
0.5520 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #30 25 places worse
paper 0.6540 ±0.0280
paper 0.6540 ±0.0280 Δ today 0.1020
7
GCN
0.5640 ±0.0150
17
ProtoW-Dot
0.5940 ±0.0310
This paper
19
ProtoW-L2
0.6050 ±0.0290
This paper
21
ProtoS-L2
0.6110 ±0.0340
This paper
25
GIN
actual #25 vs paper #30 5 places worse
0.6260 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #30 5 places worse
paper 0.6650 ±0.0260

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6650 ±0.0260 Δ today 0.0390
27
D-MPNN
0.6350 ±0.0270
This paper
32
D-MPNN+TopK Pool
0.6730 ±0.0870
This paper
33
D-MPNN+SAG Pool
0.6740 ±0.0340
This paper
71
Fingerprint+MLP
0.9220 ±0.0170
This paper
#ModelRMSE ↓Paper
1
MemGNN
0.5560 ±0.0230
2
ProtoS-L2
0.5800 ±0.0160
This paper
3
ProtoW-L2
0.6040 ±0.0140
This paper
4
ProtoW-Dot
0.6290 ±0.0150
This paper
6
D-MPNN
0.6460 ±0.0410
This paper
7
GCN
0.6550 ±0.0360
9
GIN
0.6580 ±0.0190
This paper
14
D-MPNN+TopK Pool
0.6750 ±0.0800
This paper
28
D-MPNN+SAG Pool
0.7200 ±0.0390
This paper
43
GAT
actual #43 vs paper #57 14 places worse
0.7530
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #57 14 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.0470

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8080 ±0.0470 Δ today 0.0550
79
Fingerprint+MLP
0.8850 ±0.0170
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere