Bi-GCN: Binary Graph Convolutional Network

Junfu Wang, Yunhong Wang, Zhen Yang, Liang Yang, Yuanfang Guo

Main figure for Bi-GCN: Binary Graph Convolutional Network

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved tremendous success in graph representation learning. Unfortunately, current GNNs usually rely on loading the entire attributed graph into network for processing. This implicit assumption may not be satisfied with limited memory resources, especially when the attributed graph is large. In this paper, we pioneer to propose a Binary Graph Convolutional Network (Bi-GCN), which binarizes both the network parameters and input node features. Besides, the original matrix multiplications are revised to binary operations for accelerations. According to the theoretical analysis, our Bi-GCN can reduce the memory consumption by an average of $ $30x for both the network parameters and input data, and accelerate the inference speed by an average of $ $47x, on the citation networks. Meanwhile, we also design a new gradient approximation based back-propagation method to train our Bi-GCN well. Extensive experiments have demonstrated that our Bi-GCN can give a comparable performance compared to the full-precision baselines. Besides, our binarization approach can be easily applied to other GNNs, which has been verified in the experiments.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 6 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
actual #21 vs paper #578 557 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #578 557 places worse
paper 0.8140 ±0.0040
paper 0.8140 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0577 Δ today 0.0864
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070
paper 0.8300 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0590 Δ today 0.0597
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #606 383 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #606 383 places worse
paper 0.8100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8100 Δ today 0.0409
226
FastGCN
actual #226 vs paper #666 440 places worse
0.8500
best reported
actual #226 vs paper #666 440 places worse
paper 0.7980 ±0.0030
paper 0.7980 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0520 Δ today 0.0520
597
BI-GCN
0.8120 ±0.0080
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #585 567 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #585 565 places worse
paper 0.7900 ±0.0030
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #602 461 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #602 461 places worse
paper 0.7890
159
FastGCN
actual #159 vs paper #574 415 places worse
0.8800
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #574 415 places worse
paper 0.7910 ±0.0020
paper 0.7910 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0890 Δ today 0.0890
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
536
BI-GCN
0.7940 ±0.0100
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #41 37 places worse
0.9700
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #41 37 places worse
paper 0.9590 ±0.0010
paper 0.9590 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0070 Δ today 0.0110
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #60 46 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #60 46 places worse
paper 0.9520 ±0.0010
50
Bi-GraphSAINT
0.9570 ±0.0010
This paper
59
Bi-GraphSAGE
0.9530 ±0.0010
This paper
58
GCN
0.9530 ±0.0010
88
inductiveGCN
0.9380 ±0.0010
This paper
105
Bi-inductiveGCN
0.9310 ±0.0020
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere