Learned Low Precision Graph Neural Networks

Yiren Zhao, Duo Wang, Daniel Bates, R. Mullins, M. Jamnik, Pietro Liò

Main figure for Learned Low Precision Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Deep Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) show promising performance on a range of graph tasks, yet at present are costly to run and lack many of the optimisations applied to DNNs. We show, for the first time, how to systematically quantise GNNs with minimal or no loss in performance using Network Architecture Search (NAS). We define the possible quantisation search space of GNNs. The proposed novel NAS mechanism, named Low Precision Graph NAS (LPGNAS), constrains both architecture and quantisation choices to be differentiable. LPGNAS learns the optimal architecture coupled with the best quantisation strategy for different components in the GNN automatically using back-propagation in a single search round. On eight different datasets, solving the task of classifying unseen nodes in a graph, LPGNAS generates quantised models with significant reductions in both model and buffer sizes but with similar accuracy to manually designed networks and other NAS results. In particular, on the Pubmed dataset, LPGNAS shows a better size-accuracy Pareto frontier compared to seven other manual and searched baselines, offering a 2.3 times reduction in model size but a 0.4% increase in accuracy when compared to the best NAS competitor. Finally, from our collected quantisation statistics on a wide range of datasets, we suggest a W4A8 (4-bit weights, 8-bit activations) quantisation strategy might be the bottleneck for naive GNN quantisations.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low

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
24
LPGNAS
0.8980
This paper
23
PDNAS-4
0.8980 ±0.0030
This paper
33
PDNAS-2
0.8930 ±0.0010
This paper
34
PDNAS-3
0.8930 ±0.0010
This paper
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #46 2 places worse
0.8890
actual #44 vs paper #46 2 places worse
paper 0.8890
paper 0.8890 Δ at pub 0.0150
55
JKNet
actual #55 vs paper #55
0.8870
actual #55 vs paper #55
paper 0.8870
paper 0.8870 Δ at pub 0.0200
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #779 638 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #779 638 places worse
paper 0.7450
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
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #140 105 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #140 105 places worse
paper 0.7590
paper 0.7590 Δ at pub 0.0270 Δ today 0.0490
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #168 107 places worse
0.7530
actual #61 vs paper #168 107 places worse
paper 0.7530

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7530 Δ at pub 0.0320 Δ today 0.0393
62
JKNet
actual #62 vs paper #155 93 places worse
0.7920
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #155 93 places worse
paper 0.7550
paper 0.7550 Δ at pub 0.0370
125
PDNAS-2
0.7630 ±0.0030
This paper
128
LPGNAS
0.7620 ±0.0010
This paper
154
PDNAS-4
0.7560 ±0.0020
This paper
157
PDNAS-3
0.7550 ±0.0030
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#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
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #228 208 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #228 208 places worse
paper 0.8610
24
JKNet
actual #24 vs paper #181 157 places worse
0.9160
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #181 157 places worse
paper 0.8760
paper 0.8760 Δ at pub 0.0400
86
LPGNAS
0.8960 ±0.0010
This paper
97
PDNAS-4
0.8920 ±0.0010
This paper
102
PDNAS-2
0.8910 ±0.0020
This paper
103
PDNAS-3
0.8910 ±0.0020
This paper
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #248 123 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #248 123 places worse
paper 0.8530 ±0.0010
paper 0.8530 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0180 Δ today 0.0334
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #516 514 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #516 514 places worse
paper 0.8420 ±0.0010
paper 0.8420 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0580 Δ today 0.1249
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
364
JKNet
actual #364 vs paper #491 127 places worse
0.9169
best reported
actual #364 vs paper #491 127 places worse
paper 0.8770 ±0.0010
paper 0.8770 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0399
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
458
LPGNAS
0.8970
This paper
482
LPGNAS-small
0.8860 ±0.0010
This paper
481
JKNet-V2
0.8860 ±0.0010
This paper
491
SageNet-V2
0.8790 ±0.0020
This paper
507
GAT-V2
0.8520 ±0.0040
This paper
519
SageNet
0.8400 ±0.0010
This paper
570
QJKNet-V2
0.3800
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #329 326 places worse
0.8440 ±0.0030
actual #3 vs paper #329 326 places worse
paper 0.8440 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8440 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0260 Δ today 0.0958
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
73
LPGNAS
0.9050
This paper
170
JKNet-V2
0.8880 ±0.0010
This paper
172
LPGNAS-small
0.8870 ±0.0010
This paper
224
SageNet-V2
0.8770 ±0.0020
This paper
230
JKNet
0.8760
This paper
304
GAT-V2
0.8530 ±0.0030
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
351
SageNet
0.8400
This paper
496
QJKNet-V2
0.3800
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