Scalable and Adaptive Graph Neural Networks with Self-Label-Enhanced Training

Chuxiong Sun, Guoshi Wu

Main figure for Scalable and Adaptive Graph Neural Networks with Self-Label-Enhanced Training

Abstract

Besides of the existing neighbor sampling techniques applied on common Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), scalable methods allowing normal minibatch training can more easily scale to large scaled graphs. They decouple graph convolutions and other learnable transformations into preprocessing and a scalable classifier. A complex and graph structure-aware classifier is important to achieve competitive performances. By replacing redundant concatenation operation in Scalable Inception Graph Neural Networks (SIGN) with a more graph structure-aware attention mechanism, we propose Scalable and Adaptive Graph Neural Networks (SAGN). SAGN can adaptively gather neighborhood information among different hops. To further improve scalable GNNs by introducing the existing techniques applied on common GNNs for semi-supervised learning tasks, we propose Self-Label-Enhanced (SLE) training approach combining the self-training approach and label propagation in depth. We add the base model with a scalable label model. Then we iteratively train models and enhance the training set in several stages. To generate input of the label model, we apply label propagation based on one-hot encoded label vectors without inner random masking. We find out that empirically the label leakage has been effectively alleviated with enough propagation depth. The hard pseudo labels in the enhanced training set participate in label propagation with true labels, which propagates model knowledge and label information into the whole graph. Experiments on both inductive and transductive datasets demonstrate that, compared with other sampling-based and sampling-free methods, SAGN achieves better or comparable results and SLE can further improve performance.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 6 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #13 9 places worse
0.9700
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #13 9 places worse
paper 0.9660 ±0.0010
6
SAGN
0.9690
This paper
8
SIGN
0.9680
This paper
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #57 43 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #57 43 places worse
paper 0.9530 ±0.0010
27
Stochastic-GCN
0.9640 ±0.0010
This paper
23
AS-GCN
actual #23 vs paper #43 20 places worse
0.9640 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #43 20 places worse
paper 0.9580 ±0.0010
48
ClusterGCN
actual #48 vs paper #52 4 places worse
0.9570
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #52 4 places worse
paper 0.9540 ±0.0010
58
GCN
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
0.9530 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #101 43 places worse
paper 0.9330
paper 0.9330 Δ today 0.0200
73
SGC
0.9490
This paper
91
FastGCN
actual #91 vs paper #111 20 places worse
0.9370
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #111 20 places worse
paper 0.9240 ±0.0010
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #29 25 places worse
0.9950
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #29 25 places worse
paper 0.9810 ±0.0040
paper 0.9810 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0120 Δ today 0.0140
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9850
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060
best today: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.5150 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.2930 Δ today 0.4700
34
SAGN+SLE
0.9800 ±0.0010
This paper
41
SAGN
0.9790 ±0.0010
This paper
66
SIGN
0.9700 ±0.0030
This paper
73
Stochastic-GCN
0.9630 ±0.0100
This paper
90
SGC
actual #90 vs paper #90
0.8920 ±0.0150
actual #90 vs paper #90
paper 0.8920 ±0.0150
paper 0.8920 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.4200
91
ClusterGCN
0.8750 ±0.0040
This paper
92
GIN
0.8724 ±0.0002
101
GraphSAGE
actual #101 vs paper #148 47 places worse
0.7860
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #148 47 places worse
paper 0.6370 ±0.0060
paper 0.6370 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0630 Δ today 0.1490
135
AS-GCN
0.6870 ±0.0120
This paper
149
FastGCN
actual #149 vs paper #165 16 places worse
0.6370 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #149 vs paper #165 16 places worse
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320
paper 0.5130 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.1240
173
MLP
0.4620

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
paper 0.7564 ±0.0021
14
SAGN
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
paper 0.8120 ±0.0007
paper 0.8120 ±0.0007 Δ today 0.0616
43
SAGN+SLE
actual #43 vs paper #54 11 places worse
0.8501 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #54 11 places worse
paper 0.8428 ±0.0014
paper 0.8428 ±0.0014 Δ today 0.0073
58
MLP+C&S
0.8418 ±0.0007
This paper
64
GraphSAINT
actual #64 vs paper #141 77 places worse
0.8383 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #141 77 places worse
paper 0.8027 ±0.0026
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
0.8052 ±0.0013
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
paper 0.8052 ±0.0013
paper 0.8052 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0292 Δ today 0.0258
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #208 125 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #208 125 places worse
paper 0.7850 ±0.0014
paper 0.7850 ±0.0014 Δ today 0.0437
85
UniMP
0.8256 ±0.0031
This paper
190
ClusterGCN
0.7897 ±0.0033
This paper
201
NeighborSampling
0.7870 ±0.0036
This paper
313
Node2Vec
0.7249 ±0.0010
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #370 19 places worse
paper 0.6106 ±0.0008
paper 0.6106 ±0.0008 Δ at pub 0.1928 Δ today 0.0499
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
0.7910
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
14
SAGN+SLE
0.6800 ±0.0015
This paper
16
UniMP
0.6736 ±0.0010
This paper
29
SAGN
0.6675 ±0.0084
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
0.6568 ±0.0006
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
paper 0.6568 ±0.0006
paper 0.6568 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0057 Δ today 0.0068
88
Node2Vec
actual #88 vs paper #88
0.5810
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #88
paper 0.5560 ±0.0023
95
MLP
actual #95 vs paper #96 1 place worse
0.4960 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #96 1 place worse
paper 0.4724 ±0.0031
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LMSPS+LP+MS
0.5784 ±0.0022
2
SeHGNN+emb+ms
0.5719 ±0.0012
3
SeHGNN+ms
0.5671 ±0.0014
27
SIGN
actual #27 vs paper #63 36 places worse
0.5289 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #63 36 places worse
paper 0.4046 ±0.0012
paper 0.4046 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.0764 Δ today 0.1243
57
GraphSAGE
actual #57 vs paper #78 21 places worse
0.4646 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #78 21 places worse
paper 0.3153 ±0.0015
paper 0.3153 ±0.0015 Δ today 0.1493
60
GCN
actual #60 vs paper #78 18 places worse
0.4290 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #60 vs paper #78 18 places worse
paper 0.3043 ±0.0025
66
GIN
0.3732 ±0.0033
76
MLP
actual #76 vs paper #78 2 places worse
0.3243
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #78 2 places worse
paper 0.2692 ±0.0026
paper 0.2692 ±0.0026 Δ today 0.0551
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere