ifMixup: Interpolating Graph Pair to Regularize Graph Classification
Abstract
We present a simple and yet effective interpolation-based regularization technique, aiming to improve the generalization of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) on supervised graph classification. We leverage Mixup, an effective regularizer for vision, where random sample pairs and their labels are interpolated to create synthetic images for training. Unlike images with grid-like coordinates, graphs have arbitrary structure and topology, which can be very sensitive to any modification that alters the graph's semantic meanings. This posts two unanswered questions for Mixup-like regularization schemes: Can we directly mix up a pair of graph inputs? If so, how well does such mixing strategy regularize the learning of GNNs? To answer these two questions, we propose ifMixup, which first adds dummy nodes to make two graphs have the same input size and then simultaneously performs linear interpolation between the aligned node feature vectors and the aligned edge representations of the two graphs. We empirically show that such simple mixing schema can effectively regularize the classification learning, resulting in superior predictive accuracy to popular graph augmentation and GNN methods.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 4 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
TU Dortmund
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9910
±0.0030 | |
| 2 | ID-GNN+BEC | 0.9830
±0.0360 | |
| 3 | SupCosine | 0.9830
±0.0250 | |
| 39 | GIN | 0.9330
±0.0290 | |
| 116 | DropEdge | 0.9100
±0.0570 best reported | best today: Understanding and Extending Subgraph GNNs by Rethinking Their Symmetries (NeurIPS 2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 169 | GATv2 | 0.9040
±0.0430 best reported | best today: Position: Don't be Afraid of Over-Smoothing And Over-Squashing (2026) |
| 183 | GAT | 0.9010
±0.0580 best reported | best at pub: Breaking the Limits of Message Passing Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021) best today: The Expressive Power of Graph Neural Networks: A Survey (2023) |
| 276 | ifMixup | 0.8900
±0.0060 | This paper |
| 306 | GIN Baseline | 0.8860
±0.0110 | This paper |
| 316 | MixupGraph | 0.8840
±0.0090 | This paper |
| 327 | Attr. Masking | 0.8810
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 363 | DropNode | 0.8750 best reported | best today: SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges (2022) |
| 403 | MLP | 0.8660
±0.0495 | |
| 452 | GCN Baseline | 0.8500
±0.0110 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WL-MLP | 0.9954 | |
| 2 | GIN | 0.9934 | |
| 3 | GCN | 0.9727 | |
| 4 | GAT | 0.7840
±0.0040 | prev best: GraphiT: Encoding Graph Structure in Transformers (2021) best today: 1-WL Expressiveness Is (Almost) All You Need (2022) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 41 | ifMixup | 0.8390
±0.0040 | This paper |
| 107 | Attr. Masking | 0.8250
±0.0020 | This paper |
| 111 | DropNode | 0.8240 best reported | best today: SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges (2022) |
| 117 | DropEdge | 0.8230
±0.0010 best reported | best today: SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges (2022) |
| 122 | MixupGraph | 0.8220
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 131 | GraphSAGE | 0.8200
±0.0100 | |
| 143 | GIN Baseline | 0.8180
±0.0090 | This paper |
| 206 | GCN Baseline | 0.8040
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 261 | GATv2 | 0.7910
±0.0140 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MSH-GNN | 0.9410
±0.0330 | |
| 2 | GRDL | 0.8260
±0.0120 | |
| 3 | GMN | 0.8225 | |
| 32 | GIN | 0.7880
±0.0410 | |
| 49 | GAT | 0.7800
±0.0300 best reported | best at pub: Breaking the Limits of Message Passing Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021) best today: CI-GNN: A Granger Causality-Inspired Graph Neural Network for Interpretable Brain Network-Based Psychiatric Diagnosis (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 149 | MLP | 0.7600
±0.0320 | |
| 193 | DropEdge | 0.7550
±0.0020 best reported | best today: SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges (2022) |
| 216 | ifMixup | 0.7530
±0.0080 | This paper |
| 234 | DropNode | 0.7511
±0.0300 best reported | best today: Fused Gromov-Wasserstein Graph Mixup for Graph-level Classifications (NeurIPS 2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 274 | Attr. Masking | 0.7480
±0.0050 | This paper |
| 292 | GIN Baseline | 0.7450
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 306 | GCN Baseline | 0.7420
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 307 | MixupGraph | 0.7420
±0.0030 | This paper |
| 344 | GATv2 | 0.7350
±0.0100 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GMN | 0.7866 | |
| 2 | MemGNN | 0.7550 | |
| 3 | TFGW SP | 0.7510
±0.0500 | |
| 17 | GatedGCN | 0.7000
±0.0494 | |
| 20 | GAT | 0.6850
±0.0524 best reported | best at pub: Breaking the Limits of Message Passing Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021) best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023) |
| 26 | GraphSAGE | 0.6817
±0.0545 | |
| 99 | DropEdge | 0.5970
±0.0020 best reported | best today: SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges (2022) |
| 108 | DropNode | 0.5900
±0.0040 best reported | best today: SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges (2022) |
| 121 | ifMixup | 0.5700
±0.0140 | This paper |
| 124 | MLP | 0.5583
±0.0352 | |
| 132 | MixupGraph | 0.5510
±0.0160 | This paper |
| 141 | GCN Baseline | 0.5410
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 149 | GIN Baseline | 0.5260
±0.0140 | This paper |
| 156 | Attr. Masking | 0.5060
±0.0210 | This paper |
| 166 | GATv2 | 0.4770
±0.0210 | This paper |
