NeurIPS 2020

Implicit Graph Neural Networks

Fangda Gu, Heng Chang, Wenwu Zhu, S. Sojoudi, L. Ghaoui

Main figure for Implicit Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are widely used deep learning models that learn meaningful representations from graph-structured data. Due to the finite nature of the underlying recurrent structure, current GNN methods may struggle to capture long-range dependencies in underlying graphs. To overcome this difficulty, we propose a graph learning framework, called Implicit Graph Neural Networks (IGNN.), where predictions are based on the solution of a fixed-point equilibrium equation involving implicitly defined ``state'' vectors. We use the Perron-Frobenius theory to derive sufficient conditions that ensure well-posedness of the framework. Leveraging implicit differentiation, we derive a tractable projected gradient descent method to train the framework. Experiments on a comprehensive range of tasks show that IGNNs consistently capture long-range dependencies and outperform the state-of-the-art GNN models.

Proposed method: IGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 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
0.9330 ±0.0290
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #481 322 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #481 322 places worse
paper 0.8410 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8410 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0210 Δ today 0.0630
262
IGNN
0.8930 ±0.0670
This paper
308
FDGNN
0.8850 ±0.0380
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
501
RW
actual #501 vs paper #640 139 places worse
0.8370 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #501 vs paper #640 139 places worse
paper 0.7920 ±0.0210
paper 0.7920 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0448 Δ today 0.0450
506
GK
actual #506 vs paper #582 76 places worse
0.8350 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #506 vs paper #582 76 places worse
paper 0.8140 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8140 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0210
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0160
best at pub: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)
paper 0.8270 ±0.0160 Δ today 0.1664
3
GCN
0.9727
12
WL
actual #12 vs paper #27 15 places worse
0.8590 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #27 15 places worse
paper 0.8450 ±0.0050
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8450 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0140
28
PK
actual #28 vs paper #103 75 places worse
0.8450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #103 75 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0050
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8250 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0200
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
196
IGNN
0.8050 ±0.0190
This paper
329
FDGNN
0.7780 ±0.0160
This paper
519
GK
actual #519 vs paper #540 21 places worse
0.6250 ±0.0030
actual #519 vs paper #540 21 places worse
paper 0.6250 ±0.0030
prev best: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6250 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0350

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9566 ±0.0020
2
PSHGCN
0.9561 ±0.0012
3
RpHGNN
0.9555 ±0.0029
21
GCN
0.9460 ±0.0031
37
HAN
actual #37 vs paper #167 130 places worse
0.9369
best reported
actual #37 vs paper #167 130 places worse
paper 0.7080
44
DMGI
actual #44 vs paper #149 105 places worse
0.9331
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #149 105 places worse
paper 0.7660
79
DGI
actual #79 vs paper #161 82 places worse
0.9016 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #161 82 places worse
paper 0.7200
paper 0.7200 Δ today 0.1816
81
DeepWalk
actual #81 vs paper #185 104 places worse
0.9012 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #185 104 places worse
paper 0.5370
paper 0.5370 Δ today 0.3642
159
IGNN
0.7380
This paper
163
GCN/GAT
0.7170
This paper
166
MGCN
0.7130
This paper
176
MLP
0.6447 ±0.0136
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
LMSPS
0.9469 ±0.0036
2
PSHGCN
0.9427 ±0.0023
3
SlotGAT
0.9406 ±0.0022
29
GCN
0.9229
43
HAN
actual #43 vs paper #80 37 places worse
0.9147 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #80 37 places worse
paper 0.8790
57
IGNN
0.9050
This paper
64
DMGI
0.8980
This paper
74
DGI
actual #74 vs paper #76 2 places worse
0.8844 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #74 vs paper #76 2 places worse
paper 0.8810

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8810 Δ today 0.0034
81
MGCN
actual #81 vs paper #93 12 places worse
0.8788 ±0.0054
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #93 12 places worse
paper 0.8600
85
GCN/GAT
0.8700
This paper
100
DeepWalk
actual #100 vs paper #105 5 places worse
0.8178 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #100 vs paper #105 5 places worse
paper 0.7480
paper 0.7480 Δ today 0.0698
109
MLP
0.7102 ±0.0221
#ModelMicro-F1 ↑Paper
1
ELLA
0.7930 ±0.0010
2
MHGCN
0.7820 ±0.0138
3
PSHGCN
0.7446 ±0.0032
14
GCN
0.6813 ±0.0083
18
HAN
actual #18 vs paper #52 34 places worse
0.6769 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #52 34 places worse
paper 0.6070
31
IGNN
0.6550
This paper
33
DMGI
0.6480
This paper
43
MGCN
actual #43 vs paper #43
0.6308 ±0.0038
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #43
paper 0.6300

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6300 Δ today 0.0008
49
GCN/GAT
0.6110
This paper
54
DGI
0.6060
This paper
68
DeepWalk
actual #68 vs paper #74 6 places worse
0.5636 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #74 6 places worse
paper 0.5500
paper 0.5500 Δ today 0.0136
74
MLP
0.5514
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