Adversarial Graph Disentanglement with Component-specific Aggregation

Shuai Zheng, Zhenfeng Zhu, Zhizhe Liu, Shuiwang Ji, Yao Zhao

Main figure for Adversarial Graph Disentanglement with Component-specific Aggregation

Abstract

A real-world graph has a complex topological structure, which is often formed by the interaction of different latent factors. Disentanglement of these latent factors can effectively improve the robustness and expressiveness of the node representation of a graph. However, most existing methods lack consideration of the intrinsic differences in relations between nodes caused by factor entanglement. In this paper, we propose an dversarial isentangled raph onvolutional etwork (ADGCN) for disentangled graph representation learning. To begin with, we point out two aspects of graph disentanglement that need to be considered, i.e., micro-disentanglement and macro-disentanglement. For them, a component-specific aggregation approach is proposed to achieve micro-disentanglement by inferring latent components that caused the links between nodes. On the basis of micro-disentanglement, we further propose a macro-disentanglement adversarial regularizer to improve the separability among component distributions, thus restricting the interdependence among components. Additionally, to reveal the topological graph structure, a diversity-preserving node sampling approach is proposed, by which the graph structure can be progressively refined in a way of local structure awareness. The experimental results on various real-world graph data verify that our ADGCN obtains more favorable performance over currently available alternatives. The source codes of ADGCN are available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 13 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 #583 562 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #583 562 places worse
paper 0.8130 ±0.0080
paper 0.8130 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0587 Δ today 0.0874
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #414 370 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #414 370 places worse
paper 0.8310 ±0.0040
paper 0.8310 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0580 Δ today 0.0587
108
APPNP
actual #108 vs paper #389 281 places worse
0.8787
best reported
actual #108 vs paper #389 281 places worse
paper 0.8330 ±0.0050
paper 0.8330 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0440 Δ today 0.0457
139
ChebNet
actual #139 vs paper #631 492 places worse
0.8712 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #631 492 places worse
paper 0.8050 ±0.0110
paper 0.8050 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0662
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #558 335 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #558 335 places worse
paper 0.8170 ±0.0010
paper 0.8170 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0339
256
ADGCN-R
0.8450 ±0.0070
This paper
274
ADGCN
0.8430 ±0.0060
This paper
288
LGD-GCN
0.8420 ±0.0040
This paper
297
IPGDN
0.8410
This paper
335
DisenGCN
actual #335 vs paper #414 79 places worse
0.8370
best reported
actual #335 vs paper #414 79 places worse
paper 0.8310 ±0.0110

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8310 ±0.0110 Δ today 0.0060
382
AP-GCN
actual #382 vs paper #447 65 places worse
0.8340 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #382 vs paper #447 65 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0030
paper 0.8270 ±0.0030 Δ today 0.0070
384
ARMA
actual #384 vs paper #384
0.8340 ±0.0060
actual #384 vs paper #384
paper 0.8340 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8340 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0010
444
DisGNN
0.8280 ±0.0090
This paper
463
FactorGCN
0.8260 ±0.0100
This paper
513
SGCN
0.8220 ±0.0080
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #871 147 places worse
0.6160 ±0.0060
actual #724 vs paper #871 147 places worse
paper 0.6160 ±0.0060
prev best: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.6160 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0650 Δ today 0.1608
#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 #474 454 places worse
0.8142 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #474 454 places worse
paper 0.7180 ±0.0040
paper 0.7180 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0870 Δ today 0.0962
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #570 535 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #570 535 places worse
paper 0.7080 ±0.0050
paper 0.7080 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0780 Δ today 0.1000
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 ±0.0070
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 0.7130 ±0.0020
paper 0.7130 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0060 Δ today 0.0635
204
ADGCN-R
0.7450 ±0.0080
This paper
214
ADGCN
0.7430 ±0.0070
This paper
213
LGD-GCN
0.7430 ±0.0030
This paper
231
IPGDN
0.7400
This paper
232
ChebNet
actual #232 vs paper #634 402 places worse
0.7399 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #232 vs paper #634 402 places worse
paper 0.6960 ±0.0140
paper 0.6960 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0439
267
DisenGCN
actual #267 vs paper #267
0.7360 ±0.0080
actual #267 vs paper #267
paper 0.7360 ±0.0080

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7360 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0020
271
SGCN
0.7360 ±0.0090
This paper
289
DisGNN
0.7340 ±0.0030
This paper
295
AP-GCN
0.7330 ±0.0060
This paper
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #823 473 places worse
0.6100 ±0.0100
actual #350 vs paper #823 473 places worse
paper 0.6100 ±0.0100
paper 0.6100 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0590 Δ today 0.1189
390
ARMA
0.7250 ±0.0040
This paper
444
FactorGCN
0.7220 ±0.0090
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 #439 422 places worse
0.9355 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #439 422 places worse
paper 0.8010 ±0.0020
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #614 596 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #614 596 places worse
paper 0.7880 ±0.0060
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #574 554 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #574 554 places worse
paper 0.7910 ±0.0040
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #602 461 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #602 461 places worse
paper 0.7890 ±0.0010
paper 0.7890 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0352 Δ today 0.0942
199
ChebNet
actual #199 vs paper #668 469 places worse
0.7810 ±0.0060
actual #199 vs paper #668 469 places worse
paper 0.7810 ±0.0060
paper 0.7810 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0370 Δ today 0.0908
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #807 597 places worse
0.7420 ±0.0070
actual #210 vs paper #807 597 places worse
paper 0.7420 ±0.0070
prev best: Graph Attention Networks (ICLR 2017)
paper 0.7420 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0280 Δ today 0.1270
217
ARMA
actual #217 vs paper #602 385 places worse
0.8678 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #217 vs paper #602 385 places worse
paper 0.7890 ±0.0030
362
ADGCN
0.8120 ±0.0050
This paper
361
IPGDN
0.8120
This paper
406
DisenGCN
actual #406 vs paper #482 76 places worse
0.8050
best reported
actual #406 vs paper #482 76 places worse
paper 0.7970 ±0.0070

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7970 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0080 Δ today 0.0080
416
ADGCN-R
0.8040 ±0.0040
This paper
424
SGCN
0.8030 ±0.0150
This paper
425
DisGNN
0.8030 ±0.0020
This paper
444
AP-GCN
0.8010 ±0.0070
This paper
537
FactorGCN
0.7940 ±0.0110
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere