On Representation Knowledge Distillation for Graph Neural Networks

Chaitanya K. Joshi, Fayao Liu, Xu Xun, Jie Lin, Chuan-Sheng Foo

Main figure for On Representation Knowledge Distillation for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Knowledge distillation is a learning paradigm for boosting resource-efficient graph neural networks (GNNs) using more expressive yet cumbersome teacher models. Past work on distillation for GNNs proposed the Local Structure Preserving loss (LSP), which matches local structural relationships defined over edges across the student and teacher's node embeddings. This paper studies whether preserving the global topology of how the teacher embeds graph data can be a more effective distillation objective for GNNs, as real-world graphs often contain latent interactions and noisy edges. We propose Graph Contrastive Representation Distillation (G-CRD), which uses contrastive learning to implicitly preserve global topology by aligning the student node embeddings to those of the teacher in a shared representation space. Additionally, we introduce an expanded set of benchmarks on large-scale real-world datasets where the performance gap between teacher and student GNNs is non-negligible. Experiments across 4 datasets and 14 heterogeneous GNN architectures show that G-CRD consistently boosts the performance and robustness of lightweight GNNs, outperforming LSP (and a global structure preserving variant of LSP) as well as baselines from 2D computer vision. An analysis of the representational similarity among teacher and student embedding spaces reveals that G-CRD balances preserving local and global relationships, while structure preserving approaches are best at preserving one or the other. Our code is available at

Proposed method: G-CRD

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
21
GCN
0.9850
24
G-CRD
0.9842 ±0.0014
This paper
29
LSP
actual #29 vs paper #41 12 places worse
0.9825
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #41 12 places worse
paper 0.9781 ±0.0031

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9781 ±0.0031 Δ today 0.0044
36
Supervised Teacher
0.9795 ±0.0010
This paper
37
KD
0.9793 ±0.0026
This paper
40
Supervised Student
0.9790 ±0.0045
This paper
45
FitNet
0.9774 ±0.0034
This paper
65
AT
0.9702 ±0.0076
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)