KDD 2021

ROD: Reception-aware Online Distillation for Sparse Graphs

Wentao Zhang, Yuezihan Jiang, Yang Li, Zeang Sheng, Yu Shen, Xupeng Miao, Liang Wang, Zhi Yang, Bin Cui

Main figure for ROD: Reception-aware Online Distillation for Sparse Graphs

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have been widely used in many graph-based tasks such as node classification, link prediction, and node clustering. However, GNNs gain their performance benefits mainly from performing the feature propagation and smoothing across the edges of the graph, thus requiring sufficient connectivity and label information for effective propagation. Unfortunately, many real-world networks are sparse in terms of both edges and labels, leading to sub-optimal performance of GNNs. Recent interest in this sparse problem has focused on the self-training approach, which expands supervised signals with pseudo labels. Nevertheless, the self-training approach inherently cannot realize the full potential of refining the learning performance on sparse graphs due to the unsatisfactory quality and quantity of pseudo labels. In this paper, we propose ROD, a novel reception-aware online knowledge distillation approach for sparse graph learning. We design three supervision signals for ROD: multi-scale reception-aware graph knowledge, task-based supervision, and rich distilled knowledge, allowing online knowledge transfer in a peer-teaching manner. To extract knowledge concealed in the multi-scale reception fields, ROD explicitly requires individual student models to preserve different levels of locality information. For a given task, each student would predict based on its reception-scale knowledge, while simultaneously a strong teacher is established on-the-fly by combining multi-scale knowledge. Our approach has been extensively evaluated on 9 datasets and a variety of graph-based tasks, including node classification, link prediction, and node clustering. The result demonstrates that ROD achieves state-of-art performance and is more robust for the graph sparsity.

Proposed method: ROD

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 17 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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 #550 529 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #550 529 places worse
paper 0.8180 ±0.0050
paper 0.8180 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0537 Δ today 0.0824
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
161
SIGN
actual #161 vs paper #517 356 places worse
0.8672 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #161 vs paper #517 356 places worse
paper 0.8210 ±0.0030
195
JK-Net
actual #195 vs paper #550 355 places worse
0.8579 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #195 vs paper #550 355 places worse
paper 0.8180 ±0.0050
paper 0.8180 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0399
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 ±0.0020
paper 0.8100 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0090 Δ today 0.0409
239
ROD
0.8470 ±0.0060
This paper
382
AP-GCN
actual #382 vs paper #382
0.8340 ±0.0030
actual #382 vs paper #382
paper 0.8340 ±0.0030
paper 0.8340 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0070
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #408 406 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #408 406 places worse
paper 0.9080 ±0.0100
paper 0.9080 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0176 Δ today 0.0589
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #395 387 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #395 387 places worse
paper 0.9120 ±0.0060
paper 0.9120 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0122 Δ today 0.0512
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #378 357 places worse
0.9573 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #378 357 places worse
paper 0.9140 ±0.0030
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #366 316 places worse
0.9160 ±0.0070
actual #50 vs paper #366 316 places worse
paper 0.9160 ±0.0070
195
ROD
0.9320 ±0.0070
This paper
332
AP-GCN
0.9210 ±0.0030
This paper
349
JK-Net
actual #349 vs paper #349
0.9190 ±0.0070
actual #349 vs paper #349
paper 0.9190 ±0.0070

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9190 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0014
363
SIGN
0.9170 ±0.0070
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #390 388 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #390 388 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0040
paper 0.8240 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0545 Δ today 0.1172
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #428 425 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #428 425 places worse
paper 0.8010 ±0.0060
paper 0.8010 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0683 Δ today 0.1388
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #409 351 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #409 351 places worse
paper 0.8170 ±0.0030
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #398 316 places worse
0.9022 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #398 316 places worse
paper 0.8220 ±0.0090
305
ROD
0.8530 ±0.0080
This paper
308
AP-GCN
actual #308 vs paper #357 49 places worse
0.8518 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #308 vs paper #357 49 places worse
paper 0.8370 ±0.0060
paper 0.8370 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0148
320
MLP
0.8463
378
SIGN
0.8310 ±0.0080
This paper
404
JK-Net
actual #404 vs paper #404
0.8200 ±0.0060
actual #404 vs paper #404
paper 0.8200 ±0.0060
paper 0.8200 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0207

Reddit

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAP-EDP
0.9870 ±0.0003
2
NE-ASGCN
0.9758 ±0.0027
3
HSGT
0.9730 ±0.0024
15
ROD
0.9670 ±0.0010
This paper
18
GraphSAINT
actual #18 vs paper #18
0.9660 ±0.0010
actual #18 vs paper #18
paper 0.9660 ±0.0010
21
GraphSAGE
actual #21 vs paper #51 30 places worse
0.9653 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #51 30 places worse
paper 0.9540
paper 0.9540 Δ at pub 0.0107 Δ today 0.0113
23
SAGE
0.9650 ±0.0003
47
ClusterGCN
0.9570
This paper
86
FastGCN
0.9370
This paper
147
MLP
0.8240 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
6
GAT
actual #6 vs paper #273 267 places worse
0.9782 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #273 267 places worse
paper 0.9020 ±0.0140
paper 0.9020 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0600 Δ today 0.0762
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #246 237 places worse
0.9774 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #246 237 places worse
paper 0.9270 ±0.0110
paper 0.9270 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0380 Δ today 0.0504
17
SAGE
0.9739 ±0.0018
42
APPNP
actual #42 vs paper #245 203 places worse
0.9654 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #245 203 places worse
paper 0.9280 ±0.0090
best at pub: Elastic Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021)
paper 0.9280 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0090 Δ today 0.0374
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
70
SGC
actual #70 vs paper #263 193 places worse
0.9580 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #263 193 places worse
paper 0.9170 ±0.0110
best at pub: Elastic Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021)
paper 0.9170 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0140 Δ today 0.0410
196
ROD
0.9410 ±0.0070
This paper
236
AP-GCN
0.9310 ±0.0090
This paper
240
SIGN
actual #240 vs paper #245 5 places worse
0.9303 ±0.0115
best reported
actual #240 vs paper #245 5 places worse
paper 0.9280 ±0.0080

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9280 ±0.0080 Δ today 0.0023
254
JK-Net
0.9250 ±0.0040
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ±0.0025
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #155 143 places worse
0.9514 ±0.0025
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #155 143 places worse
paper 0.9070 ±0.0020
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.9070 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0290 Δ today 0.0444
21
GAT
actual #21 vs paper #178 157 places worse
0.9437 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #178 157 places worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0020
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.8740 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0640 Δ today 0.0697
25
APPNP
actual #25 vs paper #118 93 places worse
0.9400 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #118 93 places worse
paper 0.9210 ±0.0040
paper 0.9210 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0174 Δ today 0.0190
47
ROD
0.9340 ±0.0050
This paper
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #159 63 places worse
0.9030 ±0.0050
actual #96 vs paper #159 63 places worse
paper 0.9030 ±0.0050
paper 0.9030 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0040 Δ today 0.0240
106
JK-Net
actual #106 vs paper #168 62 places worse
0.9240 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #106 vs paper #168 62 places worse
paper 0.8950 ±0.0060
paper 0.8950 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0290
128
SIGN
0.9190 ±0.0030
This paper
136
AP-GCN
0.9160 ±0.0070
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere