Graph Attention MLP with Reliable Label Utilization

Wentao Zhang, Ziqi Yin, Zeang Sheng, Wenbin Ouyang, Xiaosen Li, Yangyu Tao, Zhi Yang, Bin Cui

Main figure for Graph Attention MLP with Reliable Label Utilization

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have recently achieved state-of-the-art performance in many graph-based applications. Despite the high performance, they typically need to perform expensive recursive neighborhood expansions during every training epoch and has the scalability issue. Moreover, most of them are inflexible since they are restricted to fixed-hop neighborhoods and insensitive to actual receptive field requirements for each node. We circumvent these limitations by introducing a scalable and flexible method: Graph Attention Multi-Layer Perceptron (GAMLP). Following the routine of decoupled GNNs, the feature propagation in GAMLP is executed during pre-computation, which helps it maintain high scalability. With three proposed receptive field attention, each node in GAMLP is flexible in leveraging the propagated features over the different sizes of reception field. We conduct extensive evaluations on two large open graph benchmarks (ogbn-products and ogbn-papers100M), demonstrating that GAMLP not only achieves state-of-the-art performance, but also enjoys high scalability and efficiency.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value 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
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
paper 0.7564 ±0.0021
43
SAGN+SLE
actual #43 vs paper #54 11 places worse
0.8501 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #54 11 places worse
paper 0.8428 ±0.0014
52
GAMLP+RLU
0.8459 ±0.0010
This paper
58
MLP+C&S
0.8418 ±0.0007
This paper
65
GAMLP
actual #65 vs paper #71 6 places worse
0.8376 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #71 6 places worse
paper 0.8354 ±0.0009

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8354 ±0.0009 Δ today 0.0022
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
paper 0.8052 ±0.0016
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #208 125 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #208 125 places worse
paper 0.7850 ±0.0014
85
UniMP
0.8256 ±0.0031
This paper
127
DeeperGCN
actual #127 vs paper #127
0.8098 ±0.0020
actual #127 vs paper #127
paper 0.8098 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8098 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0008
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
0.6329 ±0.0019
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
paper 0.6329 ±0.0019

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6329 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0009 Δ today 0.1581
2
GAMLP
actual #2 vs paper #15 13 places worse
0.7036 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #15 13 places worse
paper 0.6771 ±0.0020
paper 0.6771 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0265
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
5
GAMLP+RLU
actual #5 vs paper #9 4 places worse
0.6967 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #9 4 places worse
paper 0.6825 ±0.0011
paper 0.6825 ±0.0011 Δ today 0.0142
14
SAGN+SLE
0.6800 ±0.0015
This paper
24
SIGN-XL
actual #24 vs paper #47 23 places worse
0.6706 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #47 23 places worse
paper 0.6606 ±0.0019
paper 0.6606 ±0.0019 Δ today 0.0100
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
paper 0.6568 ±0.0006
95
MLP
0.4960 ±0.0030
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LMSPS+LP+MS
0.5784 ±0.0022
2
SeHGNN+emb+ms
0.5719 ±0.0012
3
SeHGNN+ms
0.5671 ±0.0014
8
NARS-GAMLP+RLU
0.5590 ±0.0027
This paper
15
NARS-SAGN+2-SLE
0.5440 ±0.0015
This paper
18
NARS-GAMLP
actual #18 vs paper #20 2 places worse
0.5401 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #20 2 places worse
paper 0.5396 ±0.0018

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5396 ±0.0018 Δ today 0.0005
27
SIGN
actual #27 vs paper #63 36 places worse
0.5289 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #63 36 places worse
paper 0.4046 ±0.0012
paper 0.4046 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.0764 Δ today 0.1243
28
NARS
0.5240 ±0.0016
This paper
31
NARS-SAGN+0-SLE
0.5232 ±0.0025
This paper
33
R-HGNN
0.5204 ±0.0026
This paper
40
HGConv
0.5045 ±0.0017
This paper
41
R-GSN
0.5032 ±0.0037
This paper
42
HGT
actual #42 vs paper #45 3 places worse
0.4927 ±0.0061
actual #42 vs paper #45 3 places worse
paper 0.4927 ±0.0061

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4927 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0006 Δ today 0.0096
56
R-GCN
actual #56 vs paper #63 7 places worse
0.4693 ±0.0046
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #63 7 places worse
paper 0.3977 ±0.0046
57
GraphSAGE
0.4646 ±0.0060
76
MLP
0.3243
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere