Improving Subgraph Recognition with Variational Graph Information Bottleneck

Junchi Yu, Jie Cao, Ran He

Main figure for Improving Subgraph Recognition with Variational Graph Information Bottleneck

Abstract

Subgraph recognition aims at discovering a compressed substructure of a graph that is most informative to the graph property. It can be formulated by optimizing Graph Information Bottleneck (GIB) with a mutual information estimator. However, GIB suffers from training instability and degenerated results due to its intrinsic optimization process. To tackle these issues, we reformulate the subgraph recognition problem into two steps: graph perturbation and subgraph selection, leading to a novel Variational Graph Information Bottleneck (VGIB) framework. VGIB first employs the noise injection to modulate the information flow from the input graph to the perturbed graph. Then, the perturbed graph is encouraged to be informative to the graph property. VGIB further obtains the desired subgraph by filtering out the noise in the perturbed graph. With the customized noise prior for each input, the VGIB objective is endowed with a tractable variational upper bound, leading to a superior empirical performance as well as theoretical properties. Extensive experiments on graph interpretation, explainability of Graph Neural Networks, and graph classification show that VGIB finds better subgraphs than existing methods.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #519 480 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #519 480 places worse
paper 0.8300 ±0.0700

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8300 ±0.0700 Δ at pub 0.1030
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #695 632 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #695 632 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0900
paper 0.7600 ±0.0900 Δ at pub 0.1310 Δ today 0.1620
158
GraphSAGE
actual #158 vs paper #725 567 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0780
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #725 567 places worse
paper 0.7400 ±0.0800
paper 0.7400 ±0.0800 Δ at pub 0.1170 Δ today 0.1640
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #711 528 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0580
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #711 528 places worse
paper 0.7500 ±0.0800
paper 0.7500 ±0.0800 Δ at pub 0.1510 Δ today 0.1510
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
422
VGIB+GCN
0.8600 ±0.0800
This paper
486
GIB+GIN
0.8400 ±0.0600
This paper
682
VGIB+GraphSAGE
0.7700 ±0.0700
This paper
681
GIB+GCN
0.7700 ±0.0700
This paper
696
VGIB+GAT
0.7600 ±0.0700
This paper
712
GIB+GraphSAGE
0.7500 ±0.0700
This paper
713
GIB+GAT
0.7500 ±0.0900
This paper
718
SAGE
0.7490 ±0.0870
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #309 277 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #309 277 places worse
paper 0.7400 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7400 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.0210 Δ today 0.0480
49
GAT
actual #49 vs paper #408 359 places worse
0.7800 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #408 359 places worse
paper 0.7200 ±0.0400

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7200 ±0.0400 Δ at pub 0.0390 Δ today 0.0600
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #408 260 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #408 260 places worse
paper 0.7200 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7200 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.0380 Δ today 0.0400
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
155
GraphSAGE
actual #155 vs paper #363 208 places worse
0.7590 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #155 vs paper #363 208 places worse
paper 0.7300 ±0.0500

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7300 ±0.0500 Δ at pub 0.0160 Δ today 0.0290
248
VGIB+GCN
0.7500 ±0.0400
This paper
311
VGIB+GraphSAGE
0.7400 ±0.0400
This paper
313
VGIB+GAT
0.7400 ±0.0300
This paper
310
GIB+GCN
0.7400 ±0.0400
This paper
312
GIB+GIN
0.7400 ±0.0500
This paper
365
GIB+GraphSAGE
0.7300 ±0.0400
This paper
366
GIB+GAT
0.7300 ±0.0400
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #176 153 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #176 153 places worse
paper 0.7800 ±0.0300

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7800 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0260 Δ today 0.0460
30
GIN
actual #30 vs paper #176 146 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #176 146 places worse
paper 0.7800 ±0.0200
127
VGIB+GraphSAGE
0.8000 ±0.0300
This paper
136
GraphSAGE
actual #136 vs paper #176 40 places worse
0.7970 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #176 40 places worse
paper 0.7800 ±0.0200

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7800 ±0.0200 Δ at pub 0.0170 Δ today 0.0170
137
SAGE
0.7970 ±0.0170
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
155
GAT
actual #155 vs paper #227 72 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0400
actual #155 vs paper #227 72 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0400

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7600 ±0.0400 Δ at pub 0.0020
157
VGIB+GCN
0.7900 ±0.0300
This paper
159
VGIB+GAT
0.7900 ±0.0300
This paper
158
GIB+GraphSAGE
0.7900 ±0.0200
This paper
177
GIB+GCN
0.7800 ±0.0200
This paper
178
GIB+GIN
0.7800 ±0.0300
This paper
210
GIB+GAT
0.7700 ±0.0300
This paper
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere