AAAI 2021

Graph Pointer Neural Networks

Tian-bao Yang, Yujing Wang, Z. Yue, Yaming Yang, Yunhai Tong, Jing Bai

Main figure for Graph Pointer Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown advantages in various graph-based applications. Most existing GNNs assume strong homophily of graph structure and apply permutation-invariant local aggregation of neighbors to learn a representation for each node. However, they fail to generalize to heterophilic graphs, where most neighboring nodes have different labels or features, and the relevant nodes are distant. Few recent studies attempt to address this problem by combining multiple hops of hidden representations of central nodes (i.e., multi-hop-based approaches) or sorting the neighboring nodes based on attention scores (i.e., ranking-based approaches). As a result, these approaches have some apparent limitations. On the one hand, multi-hop-based approaches do not explicitly distinguish relevant nodes from a large number of multi-hop neighborhoods, leading to a severe over-smoothing problem. On the other hand, ranking-based models do not joint-optimize node ranking with end tasks and result in sub-optimal solutions. In this work, we present Graph Pointer Neural Networks (GPNN) to tackle the challenges mentioned above. We leverage a pointer network to select the most relevant nodes from a large amount of multi-hop neighborhoods, which constructs an ordered sequence according to the relationship with the central node. 1D convolution is then applied to extract high-level features from the node sequence. The pointer-network-based ranker in GPNN is joint-optimized with other parts in an end-to-end manner. Extensive experiments are conducted on six public node classification datasets with heterophilic graphs. The results show that GPNN significantly improves the classification performance of state-of-the-art methods. In addition, analyses also reveal the privilege of the proposed GPNN in filtering out irrelevant neighbors and reducing over-smoothing.

Proposed method: GPNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #226 192 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #226 192 places worse
paper 0.8108 ±0.0382
paper 0.8108 ±0.0382 Δ at pub 0.0222 Δ today 0.1122
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #148 108 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #148 108 places worse
paper 0.8486 ±0.0677

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8486 ±0.0677 Δ today 0.0703
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #193 140 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0365
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #193 140 places worse
paper 0.8243 ±0.0614

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8243 ±0.0614 Δ today 0.0757
142
GPNN
0.8523 ±0.0640
This paper
189
SAGE
0.8269
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #516 305 places worse
0.5945 ±0.0637
actual #211 vs paper #516 305 places worse
paper 0.5945 ±0.0637
prev best: Heterophilic Graphs (ICLR 2020)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5945 ±0.0637 Δ at pub 0.0107 Δ today 0.2217
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #508 251 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #508 251 places worse
paper 0.5973 ±0.0324
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.5973 ±0.0324 Δ at pub 0.0408 Δ today 0.1960
276
MixHop
0.7784 ±0.0773
This paper
455
Node2Seq
0.6370 ±0.0610
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #151 127 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #151 127 places worse
paper 0.8216 ±0.0745

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8216 ±0.0745 Δ at pub 0.0270 Δ today 0.0920
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #151 83 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #151 83 places worse
paper 0.8216 ±0.0480

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8216 ±0.0480 Δ today 0.0407
89
GPNN
0.8514 ±0.0600
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
157
GraphSAGE
actual #157 vs paper #222 65 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0739
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #222 65 places worse
paper 0.7595 ±0.0501

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7595 ±0.0501 Δ today 0.0601
158
GAT
actual #158 vs paper #418 260 places worse
0.8190 ±0.0540
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #418 260 places worse
paper 0.5676 ±0.0570
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #389 219 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #389 219 places worse
paper 0.5891 ±0.0833
paper 0.5891 ±0.0833 Δ at pub 0.0044 Δ today 0.2191
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #249 66 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #249 66 places worse
paper 0.7351 ±0.0634

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7351 ±0.0634 Δ today 0.0599
392
Node2Seq
0.5870 ±0.0680
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #194 152 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #194 152 places worse
paper 0.3579 ±0.0109
paper 0.3579 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.0038 Δ today 0.0447
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
paper 0.3423 ±0.0099
paper 0.3423 ±0.0099 Δ today 0.0476
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #192 121 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #192 121 places worse
paper 0.3586 ±0.0103
paper 0.3586 ±0.0103 Δ today 0.0299
133
GPNN
0.3708 ±0.0141
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #348 213 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #348 213 places worse
paper 0.3016 ±0.0127
paper 0.3016 ±0.0127 Δ at pub 0.0674
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234 Δ today 0.0426
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #357 175 places worse
0.2974 ±0.0146
actual #182 vs paper #357 175 places worse
paper 0.2974 ±0.0146

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.2974 ±0.0146 Δ at pub 0.0034 Δ today 0.0631
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
315
Node2Seq
0.3140 ±0.0100
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere