MathNet: Haar-Like Wavelet Multiresolution-Analysis for Graph Representation and Learning

Xuebin Zheng, Bingxin Zhou, Ming Li, Yu Guang Wang, Junbin Gao

Main figure for MathNet: Haar-Like Wavelet Multiresolution-Analysis for Graph Representation and Learning

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have recently caught great attention and achieved significant progress in graph-level applications. In this paper, we propose a framework for graph neural networks with multiresolution Haar-like wavelets, or MathNet, with interrelated convolution and pooling strategies. The underlying method takes graphs in different structures as input and assembles consistent graph representations for readout layers, which then accomplishes label prediction. To achieve this, the multiresolution graph representations are first constructed and fed into graph convolutional layers for processing. The hierarchical graph pooling layers are then involved to downsample graph resolution while simultaneously remove redundancy within graph signals. The whole workflow could be formed with a multi-level graph analysis, which not only helps embed the intrinsic topological information of each graph into the GNN, but also supports fast computation of forward and adjoint graph transforms. We show by extensive experiments that the proposed framework obtains notable accuracy gains on graph classification and regression tasks with performance stability. The proposed MathNet outperforms various existing GNN models, especially on big data sets.

Proposed method: MathNet

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8940
best at pub: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8940 Δ today 0.0390
54
PatchySan
actual #54 vs paper #86 32 places worse
0.9260 ±0.0420
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #86 32 places worse
paper 0.9158

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9158 Δ at pub 0.0102 Δ today 0.0102
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #596 437 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #596 437 places worse
paper 0.8072
paper 0.8072 Δ at pub 0.0548 Δ today 0.0968
225
MathNet
0.8960 ±0.0249
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
425
DGCNN
0.8583
This paper
426
SP
actual #426 vs paper #429 3 places worse
0.8580 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #426 vs paper #429 3 places worse
paper 0.8579
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8579 Δ at pub 0.0001
501
RW
actual #501 vs paper #504 3 places worse
0.8370 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #501 vs paper #504 3 places worse
paper 0.8368

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8368 Δ today 0.0002
550
Graphlet
actual #550 vs paper #580 30 places worse
0.8244 ±0.0129
best reported
actual #550 vs paper #580 30 places worse
paper 0.8158
best at pub: The Multiscale Laplacian Graph Kernel (NeurIPS 2016)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8158 Δ at pub 0.0086
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
18
WL
actual #18 vs paper #143 125 places worse
0.6950 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #143 125 places worse
paper 0.5343
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
49
EigenPool
0.6500
This paper
70
DiffPool
actual #70 vs paper #70
0.6253
actual #70 vs paper #70
paper 0.6253
prev best: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 0.6253 Δ at pub 0.0200
71
MathNet
0.6250 ±0.0385
This paper
119
DGCNN
actual #119 vs paper #119
0.5712
actual #119 vs paper #119
paper 0.5712
paper 0.5712 Δ at pub 0.1612
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
128
Graphlet
actual #128 vs paper #184 56 places worse
0.5530 ±0.0378
best reported
actual #128 vs paper #184 56 places worse
paper 0.4103
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 0.4103 Δ today 0.1427
179
SP
actual #179 vs paper #181 2 places worse
0.4260 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #179 vs paper #181 2 places worse
paper 0.4232

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4232 Δ at pub 0.0028
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
4
g-U-Nets
actual #4 vs paper #6 2 places worse
0.8300
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #6 2 places worse
paper 0.8243
best at pub: Graph U-Nets (2019)
best today: Orthogonal Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.8243 Δ today 0.0057
6
MathNet
0.8250 ±0.0359
This paper
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
18
DiffPool
0.8064
This paper
25
WL
actual #25 vs paper #78 53 places worse
0.7978 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #78 53 places worse
paper 0.7795
paper 0.7795 Δ at pub 0.0183 Δ today 0.0183
37
DGCNN
0.7937
This paper
56
SAGPool
actual #56 vs paper #103 47 places worse
0.7870 ±0.0229
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #103 47 places worse
paper 0.7707

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7707 Δ today 0.0163
57
EigenPool
actual #57 vs paper #58 1 place worse
0.7863 ±0.0136
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #58 1 place worse
paper 0.7860

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7860 Δ today 0.0003
62
Graphlet
0.7845
This paper
114
PatchySan
0.7627
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere