ICLR 2021

Graph-less Neural Networks: Teaching Old MLPs New Tricks via Distillation

Shichang Zhang, Yozen Liu, Yizhou Sun, Neil Shah

Main figure for Graph-less Neural Networks: Teaching Old MLPs New Tricks via Distillation

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are popular for graph machine learning and have shown great results on wide node classification tasks. Yet, they are less popular for practical deployments in the industry owing to their scalability challenges incurred by data dependency. Namely, GNN inference depends on neighbor nodes multiple hops away from the target, and fetching them burdens latency-constrained applications. Existing inference acceleration methods like pruning and quantization can speed up GNNs by reducing Multiplication-and-ACcumulation (MAC) operations, but the improvements are limited given the data dependency is not resolved. Conversely, multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) have no graph dependency and infer much faster than GNNs, even though they are less accurate than GNNs for node classification in general. Motivated by these complementary strengths and weaknesses, we bring GNNs and MLPs together via knowledge distillation (KD). Our work shows that the performance of MLPs can be improved by large margins with GNN KD. We call the distilled MLPs Graph-less Neural Networks (GLNN s) as they have no inference graph dependency. We show that GLNN s with competitive accuracy infer faster than GNNs by 146-273 and faster than other acceleration methods by 14-27. Under a production setting involving both transductive and inductive predictions across 7 datasets, GLNN accuracies improve over stand-alone MLPs by 12.36\

Proposed method: GLNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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
0.9004
348
GLNN
actual #348 vs paper #631 283 places worse
0.8360 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #348 vs paper #631 283 places worse
paper 0.8054 ±0.0135
paper 0.8054 ±0.0135 Δ today 0.0306
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #879 155 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #879 155 places worse
paper 0.5922 ±0.0131
paper 0.5922 ±0.0131 Δ at pub 0.0238 Δ today 0.1846
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
229
GLNN
actual #229 vs paper #477 248 places worse
0.7400 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #229 vs paper #477 248 places worse
paper 0.7177 ±0.0201

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7177 ±0.0201 Δ today 0.0223
259
SAGE
actual #259 vs paper #601 342 places worse
0.7361 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #259 vs paper #601 342 places worse
paper 0.7033 ±0.0197
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #833 483 places worse
0.7289 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #833 483 places worse
paper 0.5961 ±0.0288
paper 0.5961 ±0.0288 Δ at pub 0.0139 Δ today 0.1328
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
116
SAGE
actual #116 vs paper #791 675 places worse
0.8881 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #116 vs paper #791 675 places worse
paper 0.7539 ±0.0209
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #853 643 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #853 643 places worse
paper 0.6755 ±0.0231
paper 0.6755 ±0.0231 Δ at pub 0.0665 Δ today 0.1935
428
GLNN
actual #428 vs paper #789 361 places worse
0.8027 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #428 vs paper #789 361 places worse
paper 0.7542 ±0.0231
paper 0.7542 ±0.0231 Δ today 0.0485
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
actual #8 vs paper #383 375 places worse
0.8297 ±0.0216
actual #8 vs paper #383 375 places worse
paper 0.8297 ±0.0216
46
GraphSAGE
0.9120 ±0.0029
236
GLNN
actual #236 vs paper #382 146 places worse
0.8750 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #236 vs paper #382 146 places worse
paper 0.8303 ±0.0187
paper 0.8303 ±0.0187 Δ today 0.0447
320
MLP
actual #320 vs paper #478 158 places worse
0.8463
best reported
actual #320 vs paper #478 158 places worse
paper 0.6780 ±0.0106
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (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