ICLR 2021

Do We Need Anisotropic Graph Neural Networks?

Shyam A. Tailor, Felix L. Opolka, Pietro Liò, N. Lane

Main figure for Do We Need Anisotropic Graph Neural Networks?

Abstract

Common wisdom in the graph neural network (GNN) community dictates that anisotropic models---in which messages sent between nodes are a function of both the source and target node---are required to achieve state-of-the-art performance. Benchmarks to date have demonstrated that these models perform better than comparable isotropic models---where messages are a function of the source node only. In this work we provide empirical evidence challenging this narrative: we propose an isotropic GNN, which we call Efficient Graph Convolution (EGC), that consistently outperforms comparable anisotropic models, including the popular GAT or PNA architectures by using spatially-varying adaptive filters. In addition to raising important questions for the GNN community, our work has significant real-world implications for efficiency. EGC achieves higher model accuracy, with lower memory consumption and latency, along with characteristics suited to accelerator implementation, while being a drop-in replacement for existing architectures. As an isotropic model, it requires memory proportional to the number of vertices in the graph ($ (V)$); in contrast, anisotropic models require memory proportional to the number of edges ($ (E)$). We demonstrate that EGC outperforms existing approaches across 6 large and diverse benchmark datasets, and conclude by discussing questions that our work raise for the community going forward. Code and pretrained models for our experiments are provided at.

Proposed method: EGC-M

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset

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
62
PNA
0.7905 ±0.0132
This paper
92
EGC-M
0.7818 ±0.0153
This paper
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #201 92 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #201 92 places worse
paper 0.7602 ±0.0135

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7602 ±0.0135 Δ at pub 0.0105 Δ today 0.0178
126
EGC-S
0.7744 ±0.0108
This paper
140
GAT
0.7717 ±0.0137
This paper
142
GATv2
0.7715 ±0.0155
This paper
151
MPNN-max
0.7707 ±0.0137
This paper
160
GraphSAGE
actual #160 vs paper #205 45 places worse
0.7690 ±0.0136
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #205 45 places worse
paper 0.7597 ±0.0169

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7597 ±0.0169 Δ today 0.0093
184
GCN
actual #184 vs paper #191 7 places worse
0.7614 ±0.0129
actual #184 vs paper #191 7 places worse
paper 0.7614 ±0.0129

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7614 ±0.0129 Δ at pub 0.0004
235
MPNN-sum
0.7519 ±0.0357
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)