ICLR 2021

Accurate Learning of Graph Representations with Graph Multiset Pooling

Jinheon Baek, Minki Kang, Sung Ju Hwang

Main figure for Accurate Learning of Graph Representations with Graph Multiset Pooling

Abstract

Graph neural networks have been widely used on modeling graph data, achieving impressive results on node classification and link prediction tasks. Yet, obtaining an accurate representation for a graph further requires a pooling function that maps a set of node representations into a compact form. A simple sum or average over all node representations considers all node features equally without consideration of their task relevance, and any structural dependencies among them. Recently proposed hierarchical graph pooling methods, on the other hand, may yield the same representation for two different graphs that are distinguished by the Weisfeiler-Lehman test, as they suboptimally preserve information from the node features. To tackle these limitations of existing graph pooling methods, we first formulate the graph pooling problem as a multiset encoding problem with auxiliary information about the graph structure, and propose a Graph Multiset Transformer (GMT) which is a multi-head attention based global pooling layer that captures the interaction between nodes according to their structural dependencies. We show that GMT satisfies both injectiveness and permutation invariance, such that it is at most as powerful as the Weisfeiler-Lehman graph isomorphism test. Moreover, our methods can be easily extended to the previous node clustering approaches for hierarchical graph pooling. Our experimental results show that GMT significantly outperforms state-of-the-art graph pooling methods on graph classification benchmarks with high memory and time efficiency, and obtains even larger performance gain on graph reconstruction and generation tasks.

Proposed method: GMT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
HIMP
0.8740 ±0.0050
2
GINE w/ VN
0.8720 ±0.0030
3
NaiveGINe+ K=3 w/ VN
0.8700 ±0.0040
14
GCN
actual #14 vs paper #230 216 places worse
0.8400 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #230 216 places worse
paper 0.7504 ±0.0080
paper 0.7504 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0896
24
GIN
actual #24 vs paper #279 255 places worse
0.8290 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #279 255 places worse
paper 0.7327 ±0.0084
paper 0.7327 ±0.0084 Δ at pub 0.0963
30
DiffPool
actual #30 vs paper #237 207 places worse
0.8237 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #237 207 places worse
paper 0.7488 ±0.0081
paper 0.7488 ±0.0081 Δ at pub 0.0749
135
GraphSAGE
0.7744 ±0.0038
144
GMT
0.7730 ±0.0059
This paper
207
StructPool
0.7543 ±0.0079
This paper
228
MINCUTPOOL
0.7511 ±0.0069
This paper
261
Set2Set
0.7410 ±0.0113
This paper
268
EdgePool
0.7377 ±0.0068
This paper
288
ASAP
0.7224 ±0.0166
This paper
296
SAGPool(G)
0.7110 ±0.0106
This paper
306
SortPool
0.6954 ±0.0075
This paper
307
TopKPool
0.6939 ±0.0202
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)