NeurIPS 2020

Labeling Trick: A Theory of Using Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Node Representation Learning

Muhan Zhang, Pan Li, Yinglong Xia, Kai Wang, Long Jin

Main figure for Labeling Trick: A Theory of Using Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Node Representation Learning

Abstract

In this paper, we provide a theory of using graph neural networks (GNNs) for multi-node representation learning (where we are interested in learning a representation for a set of more than one node, such as link). We know that GNN is designed to learn single-node representations. When we want to learn a node set representation involving multiple nodes, a common practice in previous works is to directly aggregate the single-node representations obtained by a GNN into a joint node set representation. In this paper, we show a fundamental constraint of such an approach, namely the inability to capture the dependence between nodes in the node set, and argue that directly aggregating individual node representations does not lead to an effective joint representation for multiple nodes. Then, we notice that a few previous successful works for multi-node representation learning, including SEAL, Distance Encoding, and ID-GNN, all used node labeling. These methods first label nodes in the graph according to their relationships with the target node set before applying a GNN. Then, the node representations obtained in the labeled graph are aggregated into a node set representation. By investigating their inner mechanisms, we unify these node labeling techniques into a single and most general form---labeling trick. We prove that with labeling trick a sufficiently expressive GNN learns the most expressive node set representations, thus in principle solves any joint learning tasks over node sets. Experiments on one important two-node representation learning task, link prediction, verified our theory. Our work explains the superior performance of previous node-labeling-based methods, and establishes a theoretical foundation of using GNNs for multi-node representation learning.

Proposed method: SEAL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

OGB

#ModelHits@50 ↑Paper
1
PROXI
0.7650 ±0.0027
2
OGB Leader
0.7129 ±0.0018
3
GIDN
0.7096 ±0.0055
9
GCN
0.6621 ±0.0033
20
SEAL
0.6474 ±0.0043
This paper
21
GCN+DE
0.6444 ±0.0029
This paper
22
GCN+DRNL
0.6440 ±0.0045
This paper
23
AA
actual #23 vs paper #24 1 place worse
0.6435
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #24 1 place worse
paper 0.6417
paper 0.6417 Δ today 0.0018
27
CN
0.6137
This paper
54
GCN+LRGA
0.5221 ±0.0072
This paper
68
Node2Vec
actual #68 vs paper #76 8 places worse
0.4929 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #76 8 places worse
paper 0.4888 ±0.0054

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4888 ±0.0054 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0041
94
MLP
actual #94 vs paper #110 16 places worse
0.4438 ±0.0347
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #110 16 places worse
paper 0.1927 ±0.0129
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.1927 ±0.0129 Δ today 0.2511
98
MF
actual #98 vs paper #101 3 places worse
0.4181 ±0.0167
best reported
actual #98 vs paper #101 3 places worse
paper 0.3886 ±0.0029
paper 0.3886 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0295
#ModelHits@20 ↑Paper
1
ELGNN
0.9777 ±0.0037
2
GIDN
0.9542
3
AGDN
0.9538 ±0.0094
20
SAGE
0.6719 ±0.0118
27
GCN+LRGA
0.6230 ±0.0912
This paper
31
MF
actual #31 vs paper #81 50 places worse
0.5950 ±0.0168
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #81 50 places worse
paper 0.1368 ±0.0475
paper 0.1368 ±0.0475 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.4582
43
SEAL
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
0.4974 ±0.0239
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
paper 0.3056 ±0.0386
paper 0.3056 ±0.0386 Δ today 0.1918
50
AA
actual #50 vs paper #75 25 places worse
0.3975
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #75 25 places worse
paper 0.1861
paper 0.1861 Δ today 0.2114
51
CN
actual #51 vs paper #78 27 places worse
0.3869
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #78 27 places worse
paper 0.1773
paper 0.1773 Δ today 0.2096
64
GCN+DE
0.2663 ±0.0682
This paper
70
GCN+DRNL
0.2281 ±0.0493
This paper
#ModelHits@100 ↑Paper
1
OGB Leader
0.6524 ±0.0150
2
PRB
0.6347 ±0.0175
3
LPFormer
0.6332 ±0.0063
14
SAGE
0.5013 ±0.0055
19
SEAL
0.4880 ±0.0316
This paper
23
MLP
actual #23 vs paper #71 48 places worse
0.4600
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #71 48 places worse
paper 0.0046
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.0046 Δ at pub 0.4554 Δ today 0.4554
28
GCN+DRNL
0.4524 ±0.0395
This paper
35
GCN+DE
0.3648 ±0.0378
This paper
39
AA
0.3245
This paper
42
MF
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.3230 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.3229 ±0.0094

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3229 ±0.0094 Δ at pub 0.0001
45
GCN
actual #45 vs paper #59 14 places worse
0.3084 ±0.0178
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #59 14 places worse
paper 0.1867 ±0.0132
paper 0.1867 ±0.0132 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.1217
49
CN
actual #49 vs paper #52 3 places worse
0.2765
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #52 3 places worse
paper 0.2760
55
GCN+LRGA
0.2612 ±0.0235
This paper
57
Node2Vec
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.2230 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.2226 ±0.0088

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2226 ±0.0088 Δ at pub 0.0004
63
GraphSAGE
0.1655 ±0.0240
This paper
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
8
SEAL
0.8767 ±0.0032
This paper
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #21 9 places worse
0.8705 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #21 9 places worse
paper 0.8474 ±0.0021
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.8474 ±0.0021 Δ today 0.0231
30
SAGE
0.8292 ±0.0022
32
GraphSAGE
actual #32 vs paper #32
0.8264 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #32
paper 0.8260 ±0.0036
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8260 ±0.0036 Δ today 0.0004
39
GCN+DRNL
0.8127 ±0.0031
This paper
52
AA
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
0.7596
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
paper 0.5189
54
CN
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
0.7430
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
paper 0.5147
58
GCN+LRGA
0.6649 ±0.0159
This paper
59
Node2Vec
0.6141 ±0.0011
This paper
60
GCN+DE
0.6030 ±0.0061
This paper
62
MF
0.5186 ±0.0443
This paper
71
MLP
actual #71 vs paper #71
0.2906 ±0.0016
actual #71 vs paper #71
paper 0.2906 ±0.0016
prev best: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2906 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0011 Δ today 0.1011
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