Adaptive Graph Diffusion Networks

Chuxiong Sun, Jie Hu, Hongming Gu, Jinpeng Chen, Mingchuan Yang

Main figure for Adaptive Graph Diffusion Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have received much attention in the graph deep learning domain. However, recent research empirically and theoretically shows that deep GNNs suffer from over-fitting and over-smoothing problems. The usual solutions either cannot solve extensive runtime of deep GNNs or restrict graph convolution in the same feature space. We propose the Adaptive Graph Diffusion Networks (AGDNs) which perform multi-layer generalized graph diffusion in different feature spaces with moderate complexity and runtime. Standard graph diffusion methods combine large and dense powers of the transition matrix with predefined weighting coefficients. Instead, AGDNs combine smaller multi-hop node representations with learnable and generalized weighting coefficients. We propose two scalable mechanisms of weighting coefficients to capture multi-hop information: Hop-wise Attention (HA) and Hop-wise Convolution (HC). We evaluate AGDNs on diverse, challenging Open Graph Benchmark (OGB) datasets with semi-supervised node classification and link prediction tasks. Until the date of submission (Aug 26, 2022), AGDNs achieve top-1 performance on the ogbn-arxiv, ogbn-proteins and ogbl-ddi datasets and top-3 performance on the ogbl-citation2 dataset. On the similar Tesla V100 GPU cards, AGDNs outperform Reversible GNNs (RevGNNs) with 13\

Proposed method: AGDN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

OGB

#ModelHits@20 ↑Paper
1
ELGNN
0.9777 ±0.0037
2
GIDN
0.9542
3
AGDN
0.9538 ±0.0094
This paper
5
PLNLP
0.9088 ±0.0313
This paper
20
SAGE
0.6719 ±0.0118
24
GCN
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
0.6476 ±0.0145
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
paper 0.3707 ±0.0507
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.3707 ±0.0507 Δ today 0.2769
38
GraphSAGE
0.5390 ±0.0474
This paper
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
65
DeepWalk
actual #65 vs paper #70 5 places worse
0.2640 ±0.0610
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #70 5 places worse
paper 0.2246 ±0.0290

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2246 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0394
76
Adamic Adar
0.1861
This paper
78
Matrix Factorization
actual #78 vs paper #81 3 places worse
0.1792 ±0.0357
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #81 3 places worse
paper 0.1368 ±0.0475

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.1368 ±0.0475 Δ today 0.0424
80
Common Neighbor
0.1773
This paper
92
Resource Allocation
0.0623
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
17
Resource Allocation
0.4933
This paper
19
SEAL
0.4880 ±0.0316
This paper
23
MLP
0.4600
32
AGDN
0.4123 ±0.0159
This paper
40
Adamic Adar
0.3245
This paper
41
PLNLP
0.3238 ±0.0258
This paper
43
Matrix Factorization
0.3229 ±0.0094
This paper
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
46
DeepWalk
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.2890 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.2888 ±0.0153

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2888 ±0.0153 Δ at pub 0.0002
50
Common Neighbor
0.2765
This paper
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 ±0.0031
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.8474 ±0.0031 Δ today 0.0231
18
AGDN
0.8549 ±0.0029
This paper
20
PLNLP
0.8492 ±0.0029
This paper
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
49
Resource Allocation
actual #49 vs paper #61 12 places worse
0.7620
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #61 12 places worse
paper 0.5198
paper 0.5198 Δ today 0.2422
50
Adamic Adar
actual #50 vs paper #61 11 places worse
0.7612
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #61 11 places worse
paper 0.5189
paper 0.5189 Δ today 0.2423
61
Matrix Factorization
actual #61 vs paper #61
0.5308 ±0.0419
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #61
paper 0.5186 ±0.0443

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5186 ±0.0443 Δ today 0.0122
64
Common Neighbor
0.5147
This paper
71
MLP
0.3917 ±0.0044
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere