WWW 2021

Lorentzian Graph Convolutional Networks

Yiding Zhang, Xiao Wang, C. Shi, Nian Liu, Guojie Song

Main figure for Lorentzian Graph Convolutional Networks

Abstract

Graph convolutional networks (GCNs) have received considerable research attention recently. Most GCNs learn the node representations in Euclidean geometry, but that could have a high distortion in the case of embedding graphs with scale-free or hierarchical structure. Recently, some GCNs are proposed to deal with this problem in non-Euclidean geometry, e.g., hyperbolic geometry. Although hyperbolic GCNs achieve promising performance, existing hyperbolic graph operations actually cannot rigorously follow the hyperbolic geometry, which may limit the ability of hyperbolic geometry and thus hurt the performance of hyperbolic GCNs. In this paper, we propose a novel hyperbolic GCN named Lorentzian graph convolutional network (LGCN), which rigorously guarantees the learned node features follow the hyperbolic geometry. Specifically, we rebuild the graph operations of hyperbolic GCNs with Lorentzian version, e.g., the feature transformation and non-linear activation. Also, an elegant neighborhood aggregation method is designed based on the centroid of Lorentzian distance. Moreover, we prove some proposed graph operations are equivalent in different types of hyperbolic geometry, which fundamentally indicates their correctness. Experiments on six datasets show that LGCN performs better than the state-of-the-art methods. LGCN has lower distortion to learn the representation of tree-likeness graphs compared with existing hyperbolic GCNs. We also find that the performance of some hyperbolic GCNs can be improved by simply replacing the graph operations with those we defined in this paper.

Proposed method: LGCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Other Graph Benchmarks

Amazon2M

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUC; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use AUC only.

Sorted by AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUC ↑Paper
1
GFD
0.9757 ±0.0012
2
BWGNN
0.9742 ±0.0048
3
GDN
0.9709 ±0.0016
5
LGCN
0.9640 ±0.0110
This paper
6
DeepWalk
0.9610
This paper
10
HAT
0.9480 ±0.0080
This paper
12
HGCN
0.9350 ±0.0060
This paper
13
GraphSAGE
actual #13 vs paper #16 3 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0030
actual #13 vs paper #16 3 places worse
paper 0.9040 ±0.0030
paper 0.9040 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.1513 Δ today 0.0276
14
GAT
actual #14 vs paper #14
0.9130 ±0.0060
actual #14 vs paper #14
paper 0.9130 ±0.0060
paper 0.9130 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1614
15
GCN
actual #15 vs paper #15
0.9110 ±0.0060
actual #15 vs paper #15
paper 0.9110 ±0.0060
paper 0.9110 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1585
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result