WWW 2021

Extract the Knowledge of Graph Neural Networks and Go Beyond it: An Effective Knowledge Distillation Framework

Cheng Yang, Jiawei Liu, C. Shi

Main figure for Extract the Knowledge of Graph Neural Networks and Go Beyond it: An Effective Knowledge Distillation Framework

Abstract

Semi-supervised learning on graphs is an important problem in the machine learning area. In recent years, state-of-the-art classification methods based on graph neural networks (GNNs) have shown their superiority over traditional ones such as label propagation. However, the sophisticated architectures of these neural models will lead to a complex prediction mechanism, which could not make full use of valuable prior knowledge lying in the data, e.g., structurally correlated nodes tend to have the same class. In this paper, we propose a framework based on knowledge distillation to address the above issues. Our framework extracts the knowledge of an arbitrary learned GNN model (teacher model), and injects it into a well-designed student model. The student model is built with two simple prediction mechanisms, i.e., label propagation and feature transformation, which naturally preserves structure-based and feature-based prior knowledge, respectively. In specific, we design the student model as a trainable combination of parameterized label propagation and feature transformation modules. As a result, the learned student can benefit from both prior knowledge and the knowledge in GNN teachers for more effective predictions. Moreover, the learned student model has a more interpretable prediction process than GNNs. We conduct experiments on five public benchmark datasets and employ seven GNN models including GCN, GAT, APPNP, SAGE, SGC, GCNII and GLP as the teacher models. Experimental results show that the learned student model can consistently outperform its corresponding teacher model by $1.4\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 14 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 #471 450 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #471 450 places worse
paper 0.8244
paper 0.8244 Δ at pub 0.0473 Δ today 0.0760
39
SAGE
actual #39 vs paper #557 518 places worse
0.8911 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #557 518 places worse
paper 0.8178
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #311 267 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #311 267 places worse
paper 0.8389
45
GCNII
actual #45 vs paper #314 269 places worse
0.8893 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #314 269 places worse
paper 0.8384
paper 0.8384 Δ today 0.0509
108
APPNP
actual #108 vs paper #306 198 places worse
0.8787
best reported
actual #108 vs paper #306 198 places worse
paper 0.8398
paper 0.8398 Δ at pub 0.0372 Δ today 0.0389
141
GraphSAGE
0.8708 ±0.0085
191
CPF-tra
0.8590
This paper
194
CPF-ind
0.8581
This paper
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #631 408 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #631 408 places worse
paper 0.8052
paper 0.8052 Δ at pub 0.0138 Δ today 0.0457
269
FT
0.8431
This paper
338
GLP
0.8365
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
746
PLP
0.7663
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
20
APPNP
actual #20 vs paper #161 141 places worse
0.8142 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #161 141 places worse
paper 0.7547
paper 0.7547 Δ at pub 0.0503 Δ today 0.0595
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #359 324 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #359 324 places worse
paper 0.7276
paper 0.7276 Δ at pub 0.0584 Δ today 0.0804
36
GCNII
actual #36 vs paper #246 210 places worse
0.8076 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #246 210 places worse
paper 0.7376
paper 0.7376 Δ today 0.0700
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #550 506 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #550 506 places worse
paper 0.7110
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #528 432 places worse
0.7765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #96 vs paper #528 432 places worse
paper 0.7133
113
CPF-ind
0.7696
This paper
114
CPF-tra
0.7696
This paper
138
FT
0.7597
This paper
166
GLP
0.7536
This paper
259
SAGE
actual #259 vs paper #480 221 places worse
0.7361 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #259 vs paper #480 221 places worse
paper 0.7171

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7171 Δ today 0.0190
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
680
PLP
0.6812
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
17
APPNP
actual #17 vs paper #504 487 places worse
0.9355 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #504 487 places worse
paper 0.7950
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #674 656 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #674 656 places worse
paper 0.7804
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #739 719 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #739 719 places worse
paper 0.7702
58
GCNII
actual #58 vs paper #482 424 places worse
0.9030 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #482 424 places worse
paper 0.7971
116
SAGE
actual #116 vs paper #721 605 places worse
0.8881 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #116 vs paper #721 605 places worse
paper 0.7736
125
GraphSAGE
0.8864 ±0.0030
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #601 460 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #601 460 places worse
paper 0.7892
paper 0.7892 Δ at pub 0.0350 Δ today 0.0940
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
326
CPF-tra
0.8210
This paper
354
CPF-ind
0.8133
This paper
371
FT
0.8102
This paper
381
GLP
0.8088
This paper
845
PLP
0.6913
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #377 375 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #377 375 places worse
paper 0.8318
paper 0.8318 Δ at pub 0.0467 Δ today 0.1094
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #419 416 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #419 416 places worse
paper 0.8107
8
SAGE
actual #8 vs paper #443 435 places worse
0.9351 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #443 435 places worse
paper 0.7760
46
GraphSAGE
0.9120 ±0.0029
52
GCNII
actual #52 vs paper #377 325 places worse
0.8325
actual #52 vs paper #377 325 places worse
paper 0.8325
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #397 339 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #397 339 places worse
paper 0.8236
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #389 307 places worse
0.9022 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #389 307 places worse
paper 0.8248
319
CPF-ind
0.8467
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
328
CPF-tra
0.8447
This paper
346
FT
0.8411
This paper
447
PLP
0.7628
This paper
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere