Parameterized Hypercomplex Graph Neural Networks for Graph Classification

T. Le, Marco Bertolini, Frank No'e, Djork-Arné Clevert

Main figure for Parameterized Hypercomplex Graph Neural Networks for Graph Classification

Abstract

Despite recent advances in representation learning in hypercomplex (HC) space, this subject is still vastly unexplored in the context of graphs. Motivated by the complex and quaternion algebras, which have been found in several contexts to enable effective representation learning that inherently incorporates a weight-sharing mechanism, we develop graph neural networks that leverage the properties of hypercomplex feature transformation. In particular, in our proposed class of models, the multiplication rule specifying the algebra itself is inferred from the data during training. Given a fixed model architecture, we present empirical evidence that our proposed model incorporates a regularization effect, alleviating the risk of overfitting. We also show that for fixed model capacity, our proposed method outperforms its corresponding real-formulated GNN, providing additional confirmation for the enhanced expressivity of HC embeddings. Finally, we test our proposed hypercomplex GNN on several open graph benchmark datasets and show that our models reach state-of-the-art performance while consuming a much lower memory footprint with 70$\

Proposed method: PHC-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets

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

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑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
37
DGN
0.7970 ±0.0097
This paper
46
DeeperGCN+FLAG
0.7942 ±0.0120
This paper
47
PHC-GNN
0.7934 ±0.0116
This paper
49
PHC-4
0.7934 ±0.0116
This paper
52
PHC-2
0.7925 ±0.0107
This paper
56
PHC-2-C
0.7913 ±0.0087
This paper
61
PHC-3
0.7907 ±0.0116
This paper
62
PNA
0.7905 ±0.0132
This paper
64
PHC-4-Q
0.7904 ±0.0189
This paper
78
DeeperGCN
actual #78 vs paper #78
0.7860 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #78
paper 0.7858 ±0.0117

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7858 ±0.0117 Δ at pub 0.0002 Δ today 0.0002
88
PHC-5
0.7834 ±0.0164
This paper
93
PHC-1
0.7818 ±0.0094
This paper
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #150 41 places worse
0.7707 ±0.0149
actual #109 vs paper #150 41 places worse
paper 0.7707 ±0.0149

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7707 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.0149
123
GIN+FLAG
0.7748 ±0.0096
This paper
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
184
GCN
actual #184 vs paper #196 12 places worse
0.7630 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #196 12 places worse
paper 0.7606 ±0.0097

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7606 ±0.0097 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0024
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Large
0.3150 ±0.0010
2
Graphormer
0.3140
3
Graphormer-FLAG
0.3139 ±0.0032
19
PHC-GNN
0.2947 ±0.0026
This paper
20
PHC-2
0.2947 ±0.0026
This paper
21
PHC-2-C
0.2941 ±0.0015
This paper
22
PHC-3
0.2935 ±0.0028
This paper
23
PHC-4
0.2930 ±0.0016
This paper
25
PHC-4-Q
0.2921 ±0.0023
This paper
27
PHC-1
0.2917 ±0.0016
This paper
28
PHC-5
0.2913 ±0.0024
This paper
31
GIN
actual #31 vs paper #52 21 places worse
0.2902 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #52 21 places worse
paper 0.2703 ±0.0023
paper 0.2703 ±0.0023 Δ today 0.0199
33
DGN
0.2885 ±0.0030
This paper
36
DeeperGCN+FLAG
0.2842 ±0.0043
This paper
38
PNA
0.2838 ±0.0035
This paper
39
GIN+FLAG
0.2834 ±0.0038
This paper
47
DeeperGCN
0.2781 ±0.0038
This paper
56
GCN
actual #56 vs paper #80 24 places worse
0.2690 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #80 24 places worse
paper 0.2424 ±0.0034
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
A-NLSF
0.8149 ±0.0067
2
differential encoding
0.8096 ±0.0029
3
MPNN + VN + NoPE
0.8055 ±0.0038
10
DeeperGCN+FLAG
0.7752 ±0.0069
This paper
13
DeeperGCN
0.7712 ±0.0071
This paper
15
PHC-GNN
0.7561
This paper
16
GatedGCN
0.7531 ±0.0083
23
GIN+VN+Flag
0.7245 ±0.0114
This paper
34
GIN+VN
0.7037 ±0.0107
This paper
33
GIN
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
0.7037 ±0.0107
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
paper 0.6892 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6892 ±0.0100 Δ today 0.0145
38
GCN
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
0.6857 ±0.0061
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
paper 0.6839 ±0.0084

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6839 ±0.0084 Δ today 0.0018

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Schrödinger
0.9913 ±0.0004
2
CNN
0.9907 ±0.0007
3
MPNN
0.9895 ±0.0006
11
GatedGCN
0.9855 ±0.0002
32
GIN
0.9833 ±0.0011
90
PHC-4
0.9736 ±0.0006
This paper
93
PHC-2
0.9732 ±0.0008
This paper
94
PHC-3
0.9732 ±0.0005
This paper
101
PHC-5
0.9724 ±0.0017
This paper
104
PHC-1
0.9708 ±0.0010
This paper
126
MLP
0.9534 ±0.0014
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
62
GatedGCN
0.7133 ±0.0039
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
93
PHC-3
0.6680 ±0.0023
This paper
94
PHC-2
0.6679 ±0.0010
This paper
95
PHC-4
0.6647 ±0.0046
This paper
96
PHC-5
0.6642 ±0.0027
This paper
98
PHC-1
0.6632 ±0.0015
This paper
126
MLP
0.5634 ±0.0018
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere