ICML 2020

GraphNorm: A Principled Approach to Accelerating Graph Neural Network Training

Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Keyulu Xu, Di He, Tie-Yan Liu, Liwei Wang

Main figure for GraphNorm: A Principled Approach to Accelerating Graph Neural Network Training

Abstract

Normalization plays an important role in the optimization of deep neural networks. While there are standard normalization methods in computer vision and natural language processing, there is limited understanding of how to effectively normalize neural networks for graph representation learning. In this paper, we propose a principled normalization method, Graph Normalization (GraphNorm), where the key idea is to normalize the feature values across all nodes for each individual graph with a learnable shift. Theoretically, we show that GraphNorm serves as a preconditioner that smooths the distribution of the graph aggregation's spectrum, leading to faster optimization. Such an improvement cannot be well obtained if we use currently popular normalization methods, such as BatchNorm, which normalizes the nodes in a batch rather than in individual graphs, due to heavy batch noises. Moreover, we show that for some highly regular graphs, the mean of the feature values contains graph structural information, and directly subtracting the mean may lead to an expressiveness degradation. The learnable shift in GraphNorm enables the model to learn to avoid such degradation for those cases. Empirically, Graph neural networks (GNNs) with GraphNorm converge much faster compared to GNNs with other normalization methods, e.g., BatchNorm. GraphNorm also improves generalization of GNNs, achieving better performance on graph classification benchmarks.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 1 baseline value 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
0.9330 ±0.0290
85
GIN+GraphNorm
0.9160 ±0.0650
This paper
150
GIN + InstanceNorm
0.9050 ±0.0780
This paper
250
GIN + BatchNorm
0.8940 ±0.0560
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
554
GIN+LayerNorm
0.8240 ±0.0640
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
95
GIN + BatchNorm
0.8270 ±0.0170
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
157
GIN+GraphNorm
0.8140 ±0.0240
This paper
173
GIN + InstanceNorm
0.8120 ±0.0180
This paper
307
GIN+LayerNorm
0.7830 ±0.0170
This paper
540
DCNN
actual #540 vs paper #540
0.6261
best reported
actual #540 vs paper #540
paper 0.6260
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
116
GIN+GraphNorm
0.8020 ±0.0100
This paper
115
GIN + BatchNorm
0.8020 ±0.0190
This paper
124
GIN+LayerNorm
0.8010 ±0.0080
This paper
128
GIN + InstanceNorm
0.8000 ±0.0210
This paper
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
5
GraphNorm
0.9350 ±0.0210
This paper
8
GIN + InstanceNorm
0.9320 ±0.0170
This paper
14
GIN + BatchNorm
0.9240 ±0.0250
This paper
13
GIN
0.9240 ±0.0250
68
GIN+LayerNorm
0.8280 ±0.0770
This paper

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
71
GCN+GraphNorm
actual #71 vs paper #89 18 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #89 18 places worse
paper 0.7830 ±0.0069

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7830 ±0.0069 Δ at pub 0.0050
91
GCN+InstanceNorm
0.7818 ±0.0042
This paper
97
GIN+GraphNorm
actual #97 vs paper #110 13 places worse
0.7808 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #97 vs paper #110 13 places worse
paper 0.7773 ±0.0129

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7773 ±0.0129 Δ today 0.0035
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #221 112 places worse
0.7558 ±0.0140
actual #109 vs paper #221 112 places worse
paper 0.7558 ±0.0140

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7558 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0011
118
GIN + InstanceNorm
0.7754 ±0.0127
This paper
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
169
GIN + BatchNorm
0.7661 ±0.0097
This paper
184
GCN
actual #184 vs paper #196 12 places worse
0.7630 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #196 12 places worse
paper 0.7606 ±0.0097

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7606 ±0.0097 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0024
186
GCN+BatchNorm
0.7622 ±0.0095
This paper
238
GCN+LayerNorm
0.7504 ±0.0048
This paper
243
GIN+LayerNorm
0.7479 ±0.0092
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)