ICML 2021

How Framelets Enhance Graph Neural Networks

Xuebin Zheng, Bingxin Zhou, Junbin Gao, Yu Guang Wang, Pietro Liò, Ming Li, Guido Montúfar

Main figure for How Framelets Enhance Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach for assembling graph neural networks based on framelet transforms. The latter provides a multi-scale representation for graph-structured data. We decompose an input graph into low-pass and high-pass frequencies coefficients for network training, which then defines a framelet-based graph convolution. The framelet decomposition naturally induces a graph pooling strategy by aggregating the graph feature into low-pass and high-pass spectra, which considers both the feature values and geometry of the graph data and conserves the total information. The graph neural networks with the proposed framelet convolution and pooling achieve state-of-the-art performance in many node and graph prediction tasks. Moreover, we propose shrinkage as a new activation for the framelet convolution, which thresholds high-frequency information at different scales. Compared to ReLU, shrinkage activation improves model performance on denoising and signal compression: noises in both node and structure can be significantly reduced by accurately cutting off the high-pass coefficients from framelet decomposition, and the signal can be compressed to less than half its original size with well-preserved prediction performance.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 7 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
0.9004
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #779 638 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #779 638 places worse
paper 0.7450 ±0.0080
157
DCNN
actual #157 vs paper #669 512 places worse
0.8680
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #669 512 places worse
paper 0.7970 ±0.0080
paper 0.7970 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0710
343
UFGConv-R
0.8360 ±0.0060
This paper
425
UFGConv-S
0.8300 ±0.0050
This paper
675
LanczosNet
0.7950 ±0.0180
This paper
715
MPNN
0.7800 ±0.0110
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
793
Spectral
0.7330
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #713 652 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #713 652 places worse
paper 0.6720 ±0.0100
paper 0.6720 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0810 Δ today 0.1203
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
367
UFGConv-R
0.7270 ±0.0060
This paper
558
UFGConv-S
0.7100 ±0.0060
This paper
641
DCNN
0.6940 ±0.0130
This paper
747
LanczosNet
0.6620 ±0.0190
This paper
793
MPNN
0.6400 ±0.0190
This paper
838
Spectral
0.5890
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
78
DCNN
actual #78 vs paper #745 667 places worse
0.8980
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #745 667 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0080
paper 0.7680 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.1300
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #745 620 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #745 620 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1030 Δ today 0.1184
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
464
UFGConv-R
0.7990 ±0.0010
This paper
530
UFGConv-S
0.7940 ±0.0040
This paper
657
LanczosNet
0.7830 ±0.0030
This paper
781
MPNN
0.7560 ±0.0100
This paper
812
Spectral
0.7390
This paper

TU Dortmund

#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
53
UFGPool-Sum
0.7777 ±0.0260
This paper
58
TopKPool
actual #58 vs paper #345 287 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #345 287 places worse
paper 0.7348 ±0.0357
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 0.7348 ±0.0357 Δ at pub 0.0420
68
UFGPool-Spectrum
0.7723 ±0.0240
This paper
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
154
SAGPool
actual #154 vs paper #160 6 places worse
0.7589 ±0.0291
actual #154 vs paper #160 6 places worse
paper 0.7589 ±0.0291

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7589 ±0.0291 Δ at pub 0.0062
181
Attention
actual #181 vs paper #320 139 places worse
0.7563 ±0.0113
best reported
actual #181 vs paper #320 139 places worse
paper 0.7393 ±0.0537

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7393 ±0.0537 Δ today 0.0170
259
SUM
0.7491 ±0.0408
This paper
340
MAX
0.7357 ±0.0394
This paper
359
MEAN
0.7313 ±0.0318
This paper
#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
56
SAGPool
actual #56 vs paper #137 81 places worse
0.7870 ±0.0229
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #137 81 places worse
paper 0.7496 ±0.0360
paper 0.7496 ±0.0360 Δ at pub 0.0374
92
Attention
0.7748 ±0.0265
This paper
110
TopKPool
actual #110 vs paper #139 29 places worse
0.7640 ±0.0232
best reported
actual #110 vs paper #139 29 places worse
paper 0.7487 ±0.0412

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7487 ±0.0412 Δ today 0.0153

OGB

ogbg-molhiv

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is ROC-AUC. The paper reports 2 values on ROC-AUC and 6 values on ROC-AUC (percentage) .

#ModelROC-AUC ↑ defaultROC-AUC (percentage) ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ± 0.0002
—
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ± 0.0003
—
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ± 0.0015
—
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ± 0.0160
—
73
UFGPool-Sum
—
0.7880 ± 0.0056
ROC-AUC (percentage) 0.7880 ± 0.0056
This paper
85
UFGPool-Spectrum
—
0.7836 ± 0.0077
ROC-AUC (percentage) 0.7836 ± 0.0077
This paper
91
MEAN
—
0.7821 ± 0.0090
ROC-AUC (percentage) 0.7821 ± 0.0090
This paper
94
MAX
—
0.7816 ± 0.0133
ROC-AUC (percentage) 0.7816 ± 0.0133
This paper
94
TopKPool
0.7814 ± 0.0062
—
ROC-AUC (percentage) —
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ± 0.0182
—
124
Attention
0.7744 ±0.0127
best reported
—
ROC-AUC (percentage) —
paper 0.7444 ±0.0212
paper 0.7444 ±0.0212 Δ today 0.0300
129
SUM
—
0.7741 ± 0.0116
ROC-AUC (percentage) 0.7741 ± 0.0116
This paper
229
SAGPool
—
0.7526 ± 0.0229
ROC-AUC (percentage) 0.7526 ± 0.0229
This paper
#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
44
UFGConv-R
0.7197 ±0.0012
This paper
43
GaAN
0.7197 ±0.0018
This paper
46
SIGN
0.7195 ±0.0011
This paper
47
DeeperGCN
0.7192 ±0.0017
This paper
69
P&L + C&S
0.7126 ±0.0001
This paper
70
GraphZoom
0.7118 ±0.0018
This paper
85
UFGConv-S
0.7004 ±0.0022
This paper
107
MLP
actual #107 vs paper #108 1 place worse
0.5765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #107 vs paper #108 1 place worse
paper 0.5550 ±0.0023
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