ICLR 2021

Node Feature Extraction by Self-Supervised Multi-scale Neighborhood Prediction

Eli Chien, Wei-Cheng Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Hsiang-Fu Yu, Jiong Zhang, O. Milenkovic, I. Dhillon

Main figure for Node Feature Extraction by Self-Supervised Multi-scale Neighborhood Prediction

Abstract

Learning on graphs has attracted significant attention in the learning community due to numerous real-world applications. In particular, graph neural networks (GNNs), which take numerical node features and graph structure as inputs, have been shown to achieve state-of-the-art performance on various graph-related learning tasks. Recent works exploring the correlation between numerical node features and graph structure via self-supervised learning have paved the way for further performance improvements of GNNs. However, methods used for extracting numerical node features from raw data are still graph-agnostic within standard GNN pipelines. This practice is sub-optimal as it prevents one from fully utilizing potential correlations between graph topology and node attributes. To mitigate this issue, we propose a new self-supervised learning framework, Graph Information Aided Node feature exTraction (GIANT). GIANT makes use of the eXtreme Multi-label Classification (XMC) formalism, which is crucial for fine-tuning the language model based on graph information, and scales to large datasets. We also provide a theoretical analysis that justifies the use of XMC over link prediction and motivates integrating XR-Transformers, a powerful method for solving XMC problems, into the GIANT framework. We demonstrate the superior performance of GIANT over the standard GNN pipeline on Open Graph Benchmark datasets: For example, we improve the accuracy of the top-ranked method GAMLP from $68.25\

Proposed method: GIANT-XRT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 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
38
GIANT-XRT
0.8547 ±0.0029
This paper
43
SAGN+SLE
actual #43 vs paper #43
0.8501 ±0.0010
actual #43 vs paper #43
paper 0.8501 ±0.0010
paper 0.8501 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0073
64
GraphSAINT
actual #64 vs paper #64
0.8383 ±0.0014
actual #64 vs paper #64
paper 0.8383 ±0.0014
paper 0.8383 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0356
194
NO TFIDF+ NO PIFA
0.7891 ±0.0028
This paper
197
BERT+GAE
0.7881 ±0.0025
This paper
223
BERT
actual #223 vs paper #371 148 places worse
0.7764 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #371 148 places worse
paper 0.6090 ±0.0109
paper 0.6090 ±0.0109 Δ today 0.1674
277
OGB-feat+GAE
0.7481 ±0.0022
This paper
280
OGB-feat+VGAE
0.7466 ±0.0010
This paper
292
OGB-feat+GZ
0.7419 ±0.0055
This paper
307
BERT+DGI
0.7362 ±0.0023
This paper
332
OGB-feat+DGI
0.7054 ±0.0013
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
371
OGB-feat
0.6106 ±0.0008
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #46 45 places worse
0.6610 ±0.0013
actual #1 vs paper #46 45 places worse
paper 0.6610 ±0.0013
paper 0.6610 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0281 Δ today 0.1300
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
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
5
GAMLP+RLU
actual #5 vs paper #5
0.6967 ±0.0004
actual #5 vs paper #5
paper 0.6967 ±0.0004
paper 0.6967 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0142
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
85
GIANT-XRT
0.6110 ±0.0019
This paper
86
MLP+LLM_features
0.6110 ±0.0019
This paper
95
MLP
0.4960 ±0.0030
97
OGB-feat
0.4724 ±0.0031
This paper
98
BERT
0.4724 ±0.0039
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIANT-XRT
0.7612 ±0.0016
This paper
2
GEGCN
0.7576 ±0.0064
3
AGDN
0.7522 ±0.0007
6
BERT+GAE
0.7448 ±0.0015
This paper
7
OGB-feat
0.7426 ±0.0017
This paper
9
OGB-feat+GAE
0.7406 ±0.0010
This paper
10
OGB-feat+VGAE
0.7395 ±0.0009
This paper
12
OGB-feat+DGI
0.7390 ±0.0026
This paper
16
BERT+DGI
0.7360 ±0.0021
This paper
17
BERT
0.7359 ±0.0010
This paper
23
GCN
0.7300 ±0.0017
30
OGB-feat+GZ
0.7250 ±0.0008
This paper
32
BERT+GZ
0.7233 ±0.0006
This paper
107
MLP
0.5765 ±0.0012
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere