Training Robust Graph Neural Networks with Topology Adaptive Edge Dropping

Zhangyang Gao, S. Bhattacharya, Leiming Zhang, Rick S. Blum, Alejandro Ribeiro, Brian M. Sadler

Main figure for Training Robust Graph Neural Networks with Topology Adaptive Edge Dropping

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) are processing architectures that exploit graph structural information to model representations from network data. Despite their success, GNNs suffer from sub-optimal generalization performance given limited training data, referred to as over-fitting. This paper proposes Topology Adaptive Edge Dropping (TADropEdge) method as an adaptive data augmentation technique to improve generalization performance and learn robust GNN models. We start by explicitly analyzing how random edge dropping increases the data diversity during training, while indicating i.i.d. edge dropping does not account for graph structural information and could result in noisy augmented data degrading performance. To overcome this issue, we consider graph connectivity as the key property that captures graph topology. TADropEdge incorporates this factor into random edge dropping such that the edge-dropped subgraphs maintain similar topology as the underlying graph, yielding more satisfactory data augmentation. In particular, TADropEdge first leverages the graph spectrum to assign proper weights to graph edges, which represent their criticality for establishing the graph connectivity. It then normalizes the edge weights and drops graph edges adaptively based on their normalized weights. Besides improving generalization performance, TADropEdge reduces variance for efficient training and can be applied as a generic method modular to different GNN models. Intensive experiments on real-life and synthetic datasets corroborate theory and verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 4 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
0.9004
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #126 83 places worse
0.8900
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #126 83 places worse
paper 0.8740
paper 0.8740 Δ at pub 0.0160
47
TADropEdge-IncepGCN
0.8890
This paper
61
TADropEdge-JKNet
0.8860
This paper
74
TADropEdge-CDF
0.8830
This paper
75
TADropEdge-GCN
0.8830
This paper
97
TADropEdge-Division
0.8800
This paper
106
TADropEdge-Cutoff
0.8790
This paper
125
AS-GCN
actual #125 vs paper #125
0.8744
actual #125 vs paper #125
paper 0.8744
paper 0.8744 Δ at pub 0.0004
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #507 366 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #507 366 places worse
paper 0.8220
158
Original
0.8680
This paper
226
FastGCN
0.8500
This paper
260
PTDNet
actual #260 vs paper #465 205 places worse
0.8440 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #260 vs paper #465 205 places worse
paper 0.8250

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8250 Δ at pub 0.0190
383
NeuralSparse
actual #383 vs paper #486 103 places worse
0.8340 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #383 vs paper #486 103 places worse
paper 0.8230

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8230 Δ at pub 0.0110
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
21
TADropEdge-Division
0.8140
This paper
22
TADropEdge-CDF
0.8140
This paper
23
TADropEdge-GCN
0.8140
This paper
24
DropEdge
actual #24 vs paper #46 22 places worse
0.8130
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #46 22 places worse
paper 0.8020
paper 0.8020 Δ at pub 0.0110
28
TADropEdge-Cutoff
0.8120
This paper
38
TADropEdge-JKNet
0.8070
This paper
41
TADropEdge-IncepGCN
0.8050
This paper
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
51
AS-GCN
actual #51 vs paper #52 1 place worse
0.7970
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #52 1 place worse
paper 0.7966
paper 0.7966 Δ at pub 0.0004
55
Original
0.7940
This paper
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #519 458 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #519 458 places worse
paper 0.7140
paper 0.7140 Δ at pub 0.0390 Δ today 0.0783
82
PTDNet
0.7840
This paper
97
FastGCN
actual #97 vs paper #98 1 place worse
0.7765 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #97 vs paper #98 1 place worse
paper 0.7760

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7760 Δ today 0.0005
105
NeuralSparse
0.7730
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
26
TADropEdge-CDF
0.9150
This paper
27
TADropEdge-GCN
0.9150
This paper
32
TADropEdge-Cutoff
0.9120
This paper
33
TADropEdge-Division
0.9120
This paper
34
TADropEdge-JKNet
0.9110
This paper
35
TADropEdge-IncepGCN
0.9110
This paper
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #43
0.9090
actual #43 vs paper #43
paper 0.9090
paper 0.9090 Δ at pub 0.0480
51
AS-GCN
0.9060
This paper
54
Original
0.9040
This paper
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #200 75 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #200 75 places worse
paper 0.8710
paper 0.8710 Δ today 0.0154
159
FastGCN
0.8800
This paper
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
246
PTDNet
0.8540
This paper
257
NeuralSparse
0.8500
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere