CAP: Co-Adversarial Perturbation on Weights and Features for Improving Generalization of Graph Neural Networks

Haotian Xue, Kaixiong Zhou, Tianlong Chen, Kai Guo, Xia Hu, Yi Chang, Xin Wang

Main figure for CAP: Co-Adversarial Perturbation on Weights and Features for Improving Generalization of Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Despite the recent advances of graph neural networks (GNNs) in modeling graph data, the training of GNNs on large datasets is notoriously hard due to the overfitting. Adversarial training, which augments data with the worst-case adversarial examples, has been widely demonstrated to improve model's robustness against adversarial attacks and generalization ability. However, while the previous adversarial training generally focuses on protecting GNNs from spiteful attacks, it remains unclear how the adversarial training could improve the generalization abilities of GNNs in the graph analytics problem. In this paper, we investigate GNNs from the lens of weight and feature loss landscapes, i.e., the loss changes with respect to model weights and node features, respectively. We draw the conclusion that GNNs are prone to falling into sharp local minima in these two loss landscapes, where GNNs possess poor generalization performances. To tackle this problem, we construct the co-adversarial perturbation (CAP) optimization problem in terms of weights and features, and design the alternating adversarial perturbation algorithm to flatten the weight and feature loss landscapes alternately. Furthermore, we divide the training process into two stages: one conducting the standard cross-entropy minimization to ensure the quick convergence of GNN models, the other applying our alternating adversarial training to avoid falling into locally sharp minima. The extensive experiments demonstrate our CAP can generally improve the generalization performance of GNNs on a variety of benchmark graph datasets.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets

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
103
GAT +CAP
0.8189 ±0.0035
This paper
107
GAT +FLAG
0.8155 ±0.0035
This paper
167
GAT Vanilla
0.7945 ±0.0059
This paper
172
GCN + CAMP
0.7933 ±0.0031
This paper
173
GraphSAGE +CAP
0.7933 ±0.0031
This paper
183
GCN +FLAG
0.7909 ±0.0042
This paper
184
GraphSAGE +AE
0.7909 ±0.0042
This paper
202
GCN vanilla
0.7870 ±0.0036
This paper
203
GraphSAGE Vanilla
0.7870 ±0.0036
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
LD
0.8942 ±0.0007
2
X_WO/LD
0.8915 ±0.0012
3
X_PNE
0.8894 ±0.0014
16
GraphSAGE
0.8430
45
GraphSAGE +CAP
0.7753 ±0.0070
This paper
49
GraphSAGE + Vanilla
0.7691 ±0.0102
This paper
53
GraphSAGE +AE
0.7644 ±0.0081
This paper
60
GCN + CAMP
0.7350 ±0.0116
This paper
61
GCN + Vanilla
0.7251 ±0.0035
This paper
64
GCN +FLAG
0.7171 ±0.0050
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)