SCR: Training Graph Neural Networks with Consistency Regularization

Chenhui Zhang, Yufei He, Yukuo Cen, Zhenyu Hou, Wenzheng Feng, Yuxiao Dong, Xu Cheng, Hongyun Cai, F. He, Jie Tang

Main figure for SCR: Training Graph Neural Networks with Consistency Regularization

Abstract

We present the SCR framework for enhancing the training of graph neural networks (GNNs) with consistency regularization. Regularization is a set of strategies used in Machine Learning to reduce overfitting and improve the generalization ability. However, it is unclear how to best design the generalization strategies in GNNs, as it works in a semi-supervised setting for graph data. The major challenge lies in how to efficiently balance the trade-off between the error from the labeled data and that from the unlabeled data. SCR. is a simple yet general framework in which we introduce two strategies of consistency regularization to address the challenge above. One is to minimize the disagreements among the perturbed predictions by different versions of a GNN model. The other is to leverage the Mean Teacher paradigm to estimate a consistency loss between teacher and student models instead of the disagreement of the predictions. We conducted experiments on three large-scale node classification datasets in the Open Graph Benchmark (OGB). Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed SCR framework is a general one that can enhance various GNNs to achieve better performance. Finally, SCR has been the top-1 entry on all three OGB leaderboards as of this submission.

Proposed method: SCR

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #250 244 places worse
paper 0.7564 ±0.0021
14
SAGN
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
paper 0.8120 ±0.0007
20
SCR
0.8680 ±0.0007
This paper
21
SCR-m
0.8673 ±0.0008
This paper
25
SLE
0.8643 ±0.0020
This paper
40
RLU+SCR
0.8520 ±0.0008
This paper
51
RLU
0.8459 ±0.0010
This paper
58
MLP+C&S
0.8418 ±0.0007
This paper
65
GAMLP
actual #65 vs paper #71 6 places worse
0.8376 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #71 6 places worse
paper 0.8354 ±0.0009

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8354 ±0.0009 Δ today 0.0022
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
paper 0.8052 ±0.0016
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #208 125 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #208 125 places worse
paper 0.7850 ±0.0014
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
paper 0.6329 ±0.0019
paper 0.6329 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0281 Δ today 0.1581
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
8
RLU+SCR
0.6842 ±0.0015
This paper
9
SLE
0.6830 ±0.0008
This paper
10
RLU
0.6825 ±0.0011
This paper
11
SCR-m
0.6816 ±0.0012
This paper
12
SCR
0.6814 ±0.0008
This paper
24
SIGN-XL
actual #24 vs paper #24
0.6706 ±0.0017
actual #24 vs paper #24
paper 0.6706 ±0.0017
paper 0.6706 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0100
29
SAGN
0.6675 ±0.0084
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
paper 0.6568 ±0.0006
95
MLP
actual #95 vs paper #96 1 place worse
0.4960 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #96 1 place worse
paper 0.4724 ±0.0031
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LMSPS+LP+MS
0.5784 ±0.0022
2
SeHGNN+emb+ms
0.5719 ±0.0012
3
SeHGNN+ms
0.5671 ±0.0014
5
RLU+SCR
0.5631 ±0.0021
This paper
6
RLU
0.5590 ±0.0027
This paper
12
SCR-m
0.5451 ±0.0019
This paper
13
SLE
0.5440 ±0.0015
This paper
16
SCR
0.5432 ±0.0018
This paper
21
NARS_GAMLP
0.5396 ±0.0018
This paper
27
SIGN
actual #27 vs paper #63 36 places worse
0.5289 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #63 36 places worse
paper 0.4046 ±0.0012
paper 0.4046 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.0764 Δ today 0.1243
28
NARS
0.5240 ±0.0016
This paper
30
NARS_SAGN
0.5232 ±0.0025
This paper
56
R-GCN
actual #56 vs paper #63 7 places worse
0.4693 ±0.0046
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #63 7 places worse
paper 0.3977 ±0.0046
57
GraphSAGE
0.4646 ±0.0060
76
MLP
actual #76 vs paper #78 2 places worse
0.3243
best reported
actual #76 vs paper #78 2 places worse
paper 0.2692 ±0.0026
paper 0.2692 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0551
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere