Understanding and Resolving Performance Degradation in Deep Graph Convolutional Networks

Kuangqi Zhou, Yanfei Dong, Kaixin Wang, W. S. Lee, Bryan Hooi, Huan Xu, Jiashi Feng

Main figure for Understanding and Resolving Performance Degradation in Deep Graph Convolutional Networks

Abstract

A Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) stacks several layers and in each layer performs a PROPagation operation (PROP) and a TRANsformation operation (TRAN) for learning node representations over graph-structured data. Though powerful, GCNs tend to suffer performance drop when the model gets deep. Previous works focus on PROPs to study and mitigate this issue, but the role of TRANs is barely investigated. In this work, we study performance degradation of GCNs by experimentally examining how stacking only TRANs or PROPs works. We find that TRANs contribute significantly, or even more than PROPs, to declining performance, and moreover that they tend to amplify node-wise feature variance in GCNs, causing variance inflammation that we identify as a key factor for causing performance drop. Motivated by such observations, we propose a variance-controlling technique termed Node Normalization ($NodeNorm$), which scales each node's features using its own standard deviation. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of $NodeNorm$ on addressing performance degradation of GCNs. Specifically, it enables deep GCNs to outperform shallow ones in cases where deep models are needed, and to achieve comparable results with shallow ones on 6 benchmark datasets. $NodeNorm$ is a generic plug-in and can well generalize to other GNN architectures. Code is publicly available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets

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
0.9004
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #439 396 places worse
0.8900
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #439 396 places worse
paper 0.8280
331
NodeNorm₁
0.8370
This paper
710
PairNorm
0.7830
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
24
DropEdge
actual #24 vs paper #426 402 places worse
0.8130
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #426 402 places worse
paper 0.7230
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
321
NodeNorm₁
0.7310
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
777
PairNorm
0.6480
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
0.9296 ±0.0015
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #487 444 places worse
0.9090
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #487 444 places worse
paper 0.7960
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
388
NodeNorm₁
0.8080
This paper
676
PairNorm
actual #676 vs paper #745 69 places worse
0.7800
best reported
actual #676 vs paper #745 69 places worse
paper 0.7680

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
LD
0.8942 ±0.0007
2
X_WO/LD
0.8915 ±0.0012
3
X_PNE
0.8894 ±0.0014
16
GraphSAGE
0.8430
19
NodeNorm
0.8226 ±0.0093
This paper
20
GEN
actual #20 vs paper #31 11 places worse
0.8130 ±0.0065
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #31 11 places worse
paper 0.7936 ±0.0086
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere