NeurIPS 2020

Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks

Yiding Yang, Zunlei Feng, Mingli Song, Xinchao Wang

Main figure for Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks

Abstract

Graphs have been widely adopted to denote structural connections between entities. The relations are in many cases heterogeneous, but entangled together and denoted merely as a single edge between a pair of nodes. For example, in a social network graph, users in different latent relationships like friends and colleagues, are usually connected via a bare edge that conceals such intrinsic connections. In this paper, we introduce a novel graph convolutional network (GCN), termed as factorizable graph convolutional network (FactorGCN), that explicitly disentangles such intertwined relations encoded in a graph. FactorGCN takes a simple graph as input, and disentangles it into several factorized graphs, each of which represents a latent and disentangled relation among nodes. The features of the nodes are then aggregated separately in each factorized latent space to produce disentangled features, which further leads to better performances for downstream tasks. We evaluate the proposed FactorGCN both qualitatively and quantitatively on the synthetic and real-world datasets, and demonstrate that it yields truly encouraging results in terms of both disentangling and feature aggregation. Code is publicly available at.

Proposed method: FactorGCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 2 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 ±0.0560
best at pub: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0560 Δ today 0.0390
54
PatchySan
0.9260 ±0.0420
This paper
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #432 369 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #432 369 places worse
paper 0.8560 ±0.0580

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8560 ±0.0580 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0660
167
WL subtree
0.9040 ±0.0570
This paper
158
GraphSAGE
actual #158 vs paper #668 510 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0780
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #668 510 places worse
paper 0.7770 ±0.0150
paper 0.7770 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0800 Δ today 0.1270
205
FactorGCN
0.8990 ±0.0650
This paper
337
AWL
0.8790 ±0.0980
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
718
SAGE
0.7490 ±0.0870
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #156 133 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #156 133 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0180
paper 0.7900 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0160 Δ today 0.0360
30
GIN
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8020 ±0.0190 Δ today 0.0200
73
FactorGCN
0.8120 ±0.0140
This paper
136
GraphSAGE
actual #136 vs paper #324 188 places worse
0.7970 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #324 188 places worse
paper 0.6390 ±0.0770
paper 0.6390 ±0.0770 Δ at pub 0.1580 Δ today 0.1580
137
SAGE
0.7970 ±0.0170
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
163
WL subtree
0.7890 ±0.0190
This paper
268
AWL
0.7390 ±0.0190
This paper
280
PatchySan
0.7260 ±0.0220
This paper

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DeepGraph (48)
0.9066 ±0.0006
2
GRIT (our run)
0.9041 ±0.0023
3
GRIT 2-QiQRW
0.9016 ±0.0045
60
FactorGCN
0.8657 ±0.0002
This paper
66
GatedGCN
actual #66 vs paper #99 33 places worse
0.8651 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #99 33 places worse
paper 0.8448 ±0.0012
best today: IJCAI--23 Formatting Instructions (IJCAI 2023)
paper 0.8448 ±0.0012 Δ today 0.0203
88
GCN
actual #88 vs paper #118 30 places worse
0.8561 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #118 30 places worse
paper 0.6388 ±0.0007
paper 0.6388 ±0.0007 Δ today 0.2173
89
GIN
0.8559 ±0.0001
This paper
91
MoNet
actual #91 vs paper #93 2 places worse
0.8558 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #93 2 places worse
paper 0.8548 ±0.0004
paper 0.8548 ±0.0004 Δ today 0.0010
105
IPDGN
0.7870 ±0.0011
This paper
115
DisenGCN
0.7501 ±0.0015
This paper
123
MLP
0.5052
124
GraphSAGE
0.5052 ±0.0000
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