NeurIPS 2021

Learning Conjoint Attentions for Graph Neural Nets

Tiantian He, Y. Ong, Lu Bai

Main figure for Learning Conjoint Attentions for Graph Neural Nets

Abstract

In this paper, we present Conjoint Attentions (CAs), a class of novel learning-to-attend strategies for graph neural networks (GNNs). Besides considering the layer-wise node features propagated within the GNN, CAs can additionally incorporate various structural interventions, such as node cluster embedding, and higher-order structural correlations that can be learned outside of GNN, when computing attention scores. The node features that are regarded as significant by the conjoint criteria are therefore more likely to be propagated in the GNN. Given the novel Conjoint Attention strategies, we then propose Graph conjoint attention networks (CATs) that can learn representations embedded with significant latent features deemed by the Conjoint Attentions. Besides, we theoretically validate the discriminative capacity of CATs. CATs utilizing the proposed conjoint attention strategies have been extensively tested in well-established benchmarking datasets and comprehensively compared with state-of-the-art baselines. The obtained notable performance demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed conjoint attentions.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 9 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 0.8142 ±0.0019
paper 0.8142 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0575 Δ today 0.0862
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #314 270 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #314 270 places worse
paper 0.8384 ±0.0061
paper 0.8384 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0506 Δ today 0.0513
55
JKNet
actual #55 vs paper #709 654 places worse
0.8870
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #709 654 places worse
paper 0.7834 ±0.0002
paper 0.7834 ±0.0002 Δ at pub 0.1036
108
APPNP
actual #108 vs paper #439 331 places worse
0.8787
best reported
actual #108 vs paper #439 331 places worse
paper 0.8280 ±0.0032
paper 0.8280 ±0.0032 Δ at pub 0.0490 Δ today 0.0507
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #598 457 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #598 457 places worse
paper 0.8112 ±0.0041
165
GIN
actual #165 vs paper #572 407 places worse
0.8660 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #165 vs paper #572 407 places worse
paper 0.8158 ±0.0062
paper 0.8158 ±0.0062 Δ today 0.0502
201
CAT-E-MF
0.8556 ±0.0019
This paper
204
CAT-I-SC
0.8550 ±0.0022
This paper
209
CAT-E-SC
0.8540 ±0.0036
This paper
213
CAT-I-MF
0.8538 ±0.0016
This paper
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #536 313 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0001
actual #223 vs paper #536 313 places worse
paper 0.8190 ±0.0001
paper 0.8190 ±0.0001 Δ at pub 0.0090
232
CAT-I-FS
0.8486 ±0.0030
This paper
258
GAT-NetMF
0.8444 ±0.0019
This paper
289
CAT-E-FS
0.8415 ±0.0023
This paper
296
GAT-k-Lap
0.8410 ±0.0024
This paper
337
GAT-Deep
0.8368 ±0.0067
This paper
384
ARMA
actual #384 vs paper #655 271 places worse
0.8340
best reported
actual #384 vs paper #655 271 places worse
paper 0.8006 ±0.0057
508
MoNet
actual #508 vs paper #536 28 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0050
actual #508 vs paper #536 28 places worse
paper 0.8196 ±0.0050
prev best: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8196 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0026
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 #484 466 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #484 466 places worse
paper 0.7966 ±0.0039
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #344 324 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #344 324 places worse
paper 0.8150 ±0.0047
24
JKNet
actual #24 vs paper #468 444 places worse
0.9160
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #468 444 places worse
paper 0.7988 ±0.0001
paper 0.7988 ±0.0001 Δ at pub 0.1172
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #318 177 places worse
0.8242 ±0.0004
actual #141 vs paper #318 177 places worse
paper 0.8242 ±0.0004
paper 0.8242 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0342 Δ today 0.0590
157
GIN
actual #157 vs paper #391 234 places worse
0.8076 ±0.0033
actual #157 vs paper #391 234 places worse
paper 0.8076 ±0.0033
paper 0.8076 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0338 Δ today 0.0734
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
270
CAT-I-SC
0.8428 ±0.0020
This paper
278
CAT-E-SC
0.8402 ±0.0024
This paper
283
CAT-I-MF
0.8390 ±0.0024
This paper
289
CAT-E-MF
0.8360 ±0.0017
This paper
317
GAT-k-Lap
0.8256 ±0.0030
This paper
334
GAT-NetMF
0.8190 ±0.0033
This paper
446
MoNet
actual #446 vs paper #480 34 places worse
0.7978 ±0.0033
actual #446 vs paper #480 34 places worse
paper 0.7978 ±0.0033
paper 0.7978 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0097

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIANT-XRT
0.7612 ±0.0016
2
GEGCN
0.7576 ±0.0064
3
AGDN
0.7522 ±0.0007
23
GCN
0.7300 ±0.0017
81
GIN
actual #81 vs paper #103 22 places worse
0.7046 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #103 22 places worse
paper 0.6402 ±0.0018
paper 0.6402 ±0.0018 Δ today 0.0644
107
MLP
0.5765 ±0.0012
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere