ICLR 2020

Graph Information Bottleneck for Subgraph Recognition

Junchi Yu, Tingyang Xu, Yu Rong, Yatao Bian, Junzhou Huang, Ran He

Main figure for Graph Information Bottleneck for Subgraph Recognition

Abstract

Given the input graph and its label/property, several key problems of graph learning, such as finding interpretable subgraphs, graph denoising and graph compression, can be attributed to the fundamental problem of recognizing a subgraph of the original one. This subgraph shall be as informative as possible, yet contains less redundant and noisy structure. This problem setting is closely related to the well-known information bottleneck (IB) principle, which, however, has less been studied for the irregular graph data and graph neural networks (GNNs). In this paper, we propose a framework of Graph Information Bottleneck (GIB) for the subgraph recognition problem in deep graph learning. Under this framework, one can recognize the maximally informative yet compressive subgraph, named IB-subgraph. However, the GIB objective is notoriously hard to optimize, mostly due to the intractability of the mutual information of irregular graph data and the unstable optimization process. In order to tackle these challenges, we propose: i) a GIB objective based-on a mutual information estimator for the irregular graph data; ii) a bi-level optimization scheme to maximize the GIB objective; iii) a connectivity loss to stabilize the optimization process. We evaluate the properties of the IB-subgraph in three application scenarios: improvement of graph classification, graph interpretation and graph denoising. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the information-theoretic IB-subgraph enjoys superior graph properties.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 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
actual #39 vs paper #545 506 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #545 506 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0680
best at pub: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)
paper 0.8250 ±0.0680 Δ at pub 0.0690 Δ today 0.1080
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #721 658 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #721 658 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.1100
paper 0.7430 ±0.1100 Δ at pub 0.1140 Δ today 0.1790
158
GraphSAGE
actual #158 vs paper #721 563 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0780
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #721 563 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0770
paper 0.7430 ±0.0770 Δ at pub 0.1140 Δ today 0.1610
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #734 551 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0580
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #734 551 places worse
paper 0.7380 ±0.0740
paper 0.7380 ±0.0740 Δ at pub 0.1560 Δ today 0.1630
190
SortPool
actual #190 vs paper #473 283 places worse
0.8440 ±0.1410
actual #190 vs paper #473 283 places worse
paper 0.8440 ±0.1410

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8440 ±0.1410 Δ at pub 0.0710
239
DiffPool
actual #239 vs paper #491 252 places worse
0.8940 ±0.0460
best reported
actual #239 vs paper #491 252 places worse
paper 0.8390 ±0.0970

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8390 ±0.0970 Δ at pub 0.0110 Δ today 0.0550
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
494
GIN+GIB
0.8390 ±0.0640
This paper
589
EdgePool
actual #589 vs paper #699 110 places worse
0.8101 ±0.0082
best reported
actual #589 vs paper #699 110 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0770

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7590 ±0.0770 Δ today 0.0511
672
GCN+GIB
0.7760 ±0.0750
This paper
697
GraphSAGE+GIB
0.7600 ±0.0740
This paper
717
GAT+GIB
0.7490 ±0.0970
This paper
718
SAGE
0.7490 ±0.0870
722
ASAPool
0.7430 ±0.0770
This paper
750
AttPool
0.7210 ±0.0860
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
7
DiffPool
actual #7 vs paper #376 369 places worse
0.8161 ±0.0232
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #376 369 places worse
paper 0.7270 ±0.0460
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 0.7270 ±0.0460 Δ at pub 0.0355 Δ today 0.0891
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #445 413 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #445 413 places worse
paper 0.7070 ±0.0560

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7070 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.0467 Δ today 0.0810
49
GAT
actual #49 vs paper #429 380 places worse
0.7800 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #429 380 places worse
paper 0.7140 ±0.0400
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #412 264 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #412 264 places worse
paper 0.7190 ±0.0410

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7190 ±0.0410 Δ at pub 0.0210 Δ today 0.0410
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
152
SortPool
actual #152 vs paper #275 123 places worse
0.7598 ±0.0176
best reported
actual #152 vs paper #275 123 places worse
paper 0.7470 ±0.0440
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7470 ±0.0440 Δ at pub 0.0084 Δ today 0.0128
155
GraphSAGE
actual #155 vs paper #404 249 places worse
0.7590 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #155 vs paper #404 249 places worse
paper 0.7210 ±0.0420

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7210 ±0.0420 Δ at pub 0.0250 Δ today 0.0380
184
EdgePool
actual #184 vs paper #398 214 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0240
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #398 214 places worse
paper 0.7230 ±0.0440

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7230 ±0.0440 Δ today 0.0330
261
GIN+GIB
0.7490 ±0.0510
This paper
272
GCN+GIB
0.7480 ±0.0460
This paper
329
GAT+GIB
0.7370 ±0.0440
This paper
347
GraphSAGE+GIB
0.7340 ±0.0430
This paper
373
AttPool
0.7280 ±0.0410
This paper
397
ASAPool
actual #397 vs paper #404 7 places worse
0.7232 ±0.0291
best reported
actual #397 vs paper #404 7 places worse
paper 0.7210 ±0.0430

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7210 ±0.0430 Δ today 0.0022
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ID-GNN+BEC
0.8150 ±0.0240
2
GIN+BEC
0.8080 ±0.0330
3
GCN+BEC
0.7990 ±0.0340
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #132 128 places worse
0.7980 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #132 128 places worse
paper 0.7070 ±0.0370
paper 0.7070 ±0.0370 Δ at pub 0.0330 Δ today 0.0910
14
GIN
actual #14 vs paper #75 61 places worse
0.7810 ±0.0350
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #75 61 places worse
paper 0.7320 ±0.0480
best at pub: Graph Homomorphism Convolution (ICML 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7320 ±0.0480 Δ at pub 0.0190 Δ today 0.0490
56
GAT
actual #56 vs paper #123 67 places worse
0.7130 ±0.0420
actual #56 vs paper #123 67 places worse
paper 0.7130 ±0.0420

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7130 ±0.0420 Δ at pub 0.0080
60
GIN+GIB
0.7370 ±0.0700
This paper
78
DiffPool
actual #78 vs paper #132 54 places worse
0.7314 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #132 54 places worse
paper 0.7090 ±0.0530

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7090 ±0.0530 Δ today 0.0224
84
GAT+GIB
0.7290 ±0.0460
This paper
90
EdgePool
0.7280 ±0.0440
This paper
99
GraphSAGE
actual #99 vs paper #132 33 places worse
0.7230 ±0.0530
best reported
actual #99 vs paper #132 33 places worse
paper 0.7090 ±0.0410

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7090 ±0.0410 Δ at pub 0.0140
100
AttPool
0.7220 ±0.0470
This paper
101
GCN+GIB
0.7220 ±0.0390
This paper
103
SAGE
0.7217 ±0.0529
104
SortPool
actual #104 vs paper #123 19 places worse
0.7212 ±0.0112
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #123 19 places worse
paper 0.7120 ±0.0470

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7120 ±0.0470 Δ today 0.0092
110
GraphSAGE+GIB
0.7190 ±0.0520
This paper
120
ASAPool
0.7150 ±0.0440
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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