Evaluating Deep Graph Neural Networks

Wentao Zhang, Zeang Sheng, Yuezihan Jiang, Yikuan Xia, Jun Gao, Zhi Yang, Bin Cui

Main figure for Evaluating Deep Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have already been widely applied in various graph mining tasks. However, they suffer from the shallow architecture issue, which is the key impediment that hinders the model performance improvement. Although several relevant approaches have been proposed, none of the existing studies provides an in-depth understanding of the root causes of performance degradation in deep GNNs. In this paper, we conduct the first systematic experimental evaluation to present the fundamental limitations of shallow architectures. Based on the experimental results, we answer the following two essential questions: (1) what actually leads to the compromised performance of deep GNNs; (2) when we need and how to build deep GNNs. The answers to the above questions provide empirical insights and guidelines for researchers to design deep and well-performed GNNs. To show the effectiveness of our proposed guidelines, we present Deep Graph Multi-Layer Perceptron (DGMLP), a powerful approach (a paradigm in its own right) that helps guide deep GNN designs. Experimental results demonstrate three advantages of DGMLP: 1) high accuracy -- it achieves state-of-the-art node classification performance on various datasets; 2) high flexibility -- it can flexibly choose different propagation and transformation depths according to graph size and sparsity; 3) high scalability and efficiency -- it supports fast training on large-scale graphs. Our code is available in https://github.com/zwt233/DGMLP.

Proposed method: DGMLP

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
72
GBP
actual #72 vs paper #220 148 places worse
0.8350 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #220 148 places worse
paper 0.7770 ±0.0020
paper 0.7770 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0580
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #232 155 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #232 155 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0020
78
S^2GC
actual #78 vs paper #229 151 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #229 151 places worse
paper 0.7710 ±0.0010
paper 0.7710 ±0.0010 Δ today 0.0600
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #215 132 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #215 132 places worse
paper 0.7830 ±0.0020
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #245 151 places worse
0.7590 ±0.0020
actual #94 vs paper #245 151 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0020
210
DGMLP
0.7850 ±0.0020
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #77 76 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #77 76 places worse
paper 0.6320 ±0.0020
paper 0.6320 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.1590
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #68 30 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #68 30 places worse
paper 0.6420 ±0.0020
52
GraphSAGE
actual #52 vs paper #63 11 places worse
0.6580
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #63 11 places worse
paper 0.6480 ±0.0040
53
DGMLP
0.6570 ±0.0020
This paper
59
GBP
actual #59 vs paper #59
0.6524 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #59 vs paper #59
paper 0.6520 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6520 ±0.0030 Δ today 0.0004
64
S^2GC
actual #64 vs paper #65 1 place worse
0.6473 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #65 1 place worse
paper 0.6470 ±0.0030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6470 ±0.0030 Δ today 0.0003
95
MLP
0.4960 ±0.0030
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