ICML 2021

Training Graph Neural Networks with 1000 Layers

Guohao Li, Matthias Müller, Bernard Ghanem, V. Koltun

Main figure for Training Graph Neural Networks with 1000 Layers

Abstract

Deep graph neural networks (GNNs) have achieved excellent results on various tasks on increasingly large graph datasets with millions of nodes and edges. However, memory complexity has become a major obstacle when training deep GNNs for practical applications due to the immense number of nodes, edges, and intermediate activations. To improve the scalability of GNNs, prior works propose smart graph sampling or partitioning strategies to train GNNs with a smaller set of nodes or sub-graphs. In this work, we study reversible connections, group convolutions, weight tying, and equilibrium models to advance the memory and parameter efficiency of GNNs. We find that reversible connections in combination with deep network architectures enable the training of overparameterized GNNs that significantly outperform existing methods on multiple datasets. Our models RevGNN-Deep (1001 layers with 80 channels each) and RevGNN-Wide (448 layers with 224 channels each) were both trained on a single commodity GPU and achieve an ROC-AUC of 87.74 ± 0.13 and 88.24 ± 0.15 on the ogbn-proteins dataset. To the best of our knowledge, RevGNN-Deep is the deepest GNN in the literature by one order of magnitude.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset

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

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
LD
0.8942 ±0.0007
2
X_WO/LD
0.8915 ±0.0012
3
X_PNE
0.8894 ±0.0014
6
RevGNN
0.8824 ±0.0015
This paper
7
RevGNN-Deep
0.8774 ±0.0013
This paper
8
UniMP+CEF
0.8691 ±0.0018
This paper
9
GAT
0.8682 ±0.0021
This paper
11
DeeperGCN
actual #11 vs paper #11
0.8616 ±0.0016
actual #11 vs paper #11
paper 0.8616 ±0.0016
paper 0.8616 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0036
16
GraphSAGE
actual #16 vs paper #44 28 places worse
0.8430
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #44 28 places worse
paper 0.7768 ±0.0020
17
GCN
actual #17 vs paper #60 43 places worse
0.8320
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #60 43 places worse
paper 0.7251 ±0.0035
29
SAGE
0.7943 ±0.0075
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere