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
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 best reported | best at pub: SplineCNN: Fast Geometric Deep Learning with Continuous B-Spline Kernels (2017) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 44 | GAT | 0.8897
±0.0014 best reported | best at pub: Learned Low Precision Graph Neural Networks (2020) |
| 143 | Graph-MLP | 0.8706
±0.0138 best reported | best today: Node Identifiers: Compact, Discrete Representations for Efficient Graph Learning (ICLR 2024) |
| 177 | DGI | 0.8630
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 223 | SGC | 0.8509
±0.0648 best reported | best at pub: Learning Conjoint Attentions for Graph Neural Nets (NeurIPS 2021) |
| 435 | DeepWalk | 0.8290 best reported | best at pub: Graph Representation Learning: A Survey (2019) |
| 638 | AdaLNet | 0.8040 | This paper |
| 677 | LNet | 0.7950 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 | |
| 883 | MLP (α=0) | 0.5780 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) best today: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 66 | DGI | 0.7890
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) best today: Oversmoothing: A Nightmare for Graph Contrastive Learning? (2023) |
| 69 | Graph-MLP | 0.7886
±0.0008 best reported | |
| 96 | SGC | 0.7765
±0.0012 best reported | best at pub: Deep Learning on Graphs: A Survey (2018) |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 666 | AdaLNet | 0.6870 | This paper |
| 692 | DeepWalk | 0.5140 | prev best: GraphZoom: A Multi-level Spectral Approach for Accurate and Scalable Graph Embedding (ICLR 2019) best today: Decoupled Self-supervised Learning for Non-Homophilou Graphs (2022) |
| 746 | LNet | 0.6620 | This paper |
| 855 | MLP (α=0) | 0.5470 | This paper |
