Graph-MLP: Node Classification without Message Passing in Graph

Yang Hu, Haoxuan You, Zhecan Wang, Zhicheng Wang, Erjin Zhou, Yue Gao

Main figure for Graph-MLP: Node Classification without Message Passing in Graph

Abstract

Graph Neural Network (GNN) has been demonstrated its effectiveness in dealing with non-Euclidean structural data. Both spatial-based and spectral-based GNNs are relying on adjacency matrix to guide message passing among neighbors during feature aggregation. Recent works have mainly focused on powerful message passing modules, however, in this paper, we show that none of the message passing modules is necessary. Instead, we propose a pure multilayer-perceptron-based framework, Graph-MLP with the supervision signal leveraging graph structure, which is sufficient for learning discriminative node representation. In model-level, Graph-MLP only includes multi-layer perceptrons, activation function, and layer normalization. In the loss level, we design a neighboring contrastive (NContrast) loss to bridge the gap between GNNs and MLPs by utilizing the adjacency information implicitly. This design allows our model to be lighter and more robust when facing large-scale graph data and corrupted adjacency information. Extensive experiments prove that even without adjacency information in testing phase, our framework can still reach comparable and even superior performance against the state-of-the-art models in the graph node classification task.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 6 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
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
paper 0.8150
paper 0.8150 Δ at pub 0.0567 Δ today 0.0854
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8300
143
Graph-MLP
actual #143 vs paper #674 531 places worse
0.8706 ±0.0138
best reported
actual #143 vs paper #674 531 places worse
paper 0.7950
177
DGI
actual #177 vs paper #486 309 places worse
0.8630 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #177 vs paper #486 309 places worse
paper 0.8230
paper 0.8230 Δ today 0.0400
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #606 383 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #606 383 places worse
paper 0.8100
paper 0.8100 Δ at pub 0.0090 Δ today 0.0409
435
DeepWalk
actual #435 vs paper #814 379 places worse
0.8290
best reported
actual #435 vs paper #814 379 places worse
paper 0.7070
paper 0.7070 Δ at pub 0.1220
638
AdaLNet
0.8040
This paper
677
LNet
0.7950
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
883
MLP (α=0)
0.5780
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #388 353 places worse
paper 0.7250
paper 0.7250 Δ at pub 0.0610 Δ today 0.0830
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #603 559 places worse
paper 0.7030
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
66
DGI
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
0.7890 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #474 408 places worse
paper 0.7180
paper 0.7180 Δ today 0.0710
69
Graph-MLP
actual #69 vs paper #316 247 places worse
0.7886 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #69 vs paper #316 247 places worse
paper 0.7310
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #463 367 places worse
0.7765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #96 vs paper #463 367 places worse
paper 0.7190
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
666
AdaLNet
0.6870
This paper
692
DeepWalk
actual #692 vs paper #864 172 places worse
0.5140
actual #692 vs paper #864 172 places worse
paper 0.5140
746
LNet
0.6620
This paper
855
MLP (α=0)
0.5470
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere