AAAI 2020

Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network

Jinyu Yang, P. Zhao, Yu Rong, Chao-chao Yan, Chunyuan Li, Hehuan Ma, Junzhou Huang

Main figure for Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) draw their strength from explicitly modeling the topological information of structured data. However, existing GNNs suffer from limited capability in capturing the hierarchical graph representation which plays an important role in graph classification. In this paper, we innovatively propose hierarchical graph capsule network (HGCN) that can jointly learn node embeddings and extract graph hierarchies. Specifically, disentangled graph capsules are established by identifying heterogeneous factors underlying each node, such that their instantiation parameters represent different properties of the same entity. To learn the hierarchical representation, HGCN characterizes the part-whole relationship between lower-level capsules (part) and higher-level capsules (whole) by explicitly considering the structure information among the parts. Experimental studies demonstrate the effectiveness of HGCN and the contribution of each component. Code: https://github.com/uta-smile/HGCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 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
0.9330 ±0.0290
41
HGCN
0.9316 ±0.0610
This paper
51
PSCN
actual #51 vs paper #279 228 places worse
0.9263 ±0.0421
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #279 228 places worse
paper 0.8895 ±0.0437

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8895 ±0.0437 Δ at pub 0.0368 Δ today 0.0368
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #379 316 places worse
0.8720 ±0.0511
actual #63 vs paper #379 316 places worse
paper 0.8720 ±0.0511

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8720 ±0.0511 Δ at pub 0.0150
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #563 404 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #563 404 places worse
paper 0.8205 ±0.0036
paper 0.8205 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.0415 Δ today 0.0835
365
DGK
0.8744 ±0.0272
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
634
EigenPooling
0.7950
This paper
671
HaarPool
0.7760 ±0.0894
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #47 44 places worse
0.8365 ±0.0169
actual #3 vs paper #47 44 places worse
paper 0.8365 ±0.0169
paper 0.8365 ±0.0169 Δ at pub 0.0345 Δ today 0.1362
24
CapsNets
0.8487 ±0.0168
This paper
88
GFN
0.8277 ±0.0149
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
218
HaarPool
0.8017 ±0.0229
This paper
302
CapsGNN
actual #302 vs paper #303 1 place worse
0.7840 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #302 vs paper #303 1 place worse
paper 0.7835 ±0.0155

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7835 ±0.0155 Δ today 0.0005
357
EigenPooling
0.7700
This paper
519
GK
actual #519 vs paper #541 22 places worse
0.6600 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #519 vs paper #541 22 places worse
paper 0.6249 ±0.0027
best at pub: Implicit Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.6249 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0001 Δ today 0.0351
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
101
EigenPooling
0.7660
This paper
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #179 31 places worse
0.7565 ±0.0324
actual #148 vs paper #179 31 places worse
paper 0.7565 ±0.0324

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7565 ±0.0324 Δ at pub 0.0165
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
178
DGK
0.7568 ±0.0054
This paper
355
HaarPool
0.7323 ±0.0251
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
16
GFN
0.7017 ±0.0558
This paper
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #36
0.6650 ±0.0691
actual #36 vs paper #36
paper 0.6650 ±0.0691

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6650 ±0.0691 Δ at pub 0.0740
54
EigenPooling
0.6450
This paper
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
127
CapsGNN
actual #127 vs paper #136 9 places worse
0.5531 ±0.0423
best reported
actual #127 vs paper #136 9 places worse
paper 0.5467 ±0.0567

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5467 ±0.0567 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0064
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
43
GCN
actual #43 vs paper #43
0.7912 ±0.0307
actual #43 vs paper #43
paper 0.7912 ±0.0307

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7912 ±0.0307 Δ at pub 0.0322
52
GFN
0.7878 ±0.0349
This paper
85
GCAPS-CNN
0.7762 ±0.0499
This paper
97
CliquePool
0.7733
This paper
101
PSCN
actual #101 vs paper #113 12 places worse
0.7712 ±0.0241
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #113 12 places worse
paper 0.7627 ±0.0264

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7627 ±0.0264 Δ at pub 0.0085 Δ today 0.0085
132
CapsGNN
0.7538 ±0.0417
This paper
164
AWE
0.7151 ±0.0402
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere