Automated Graph Machine Learning: Approaches, Libraries, Benchmarks and Directions

Xin Wang, Ziwei Zhang, Haoyang Li, Wenwu Zhu

Main figure for Automated Graph Machine Learning: Approaches, Libraries, Benchmarks and Directions

Abstract

Graph machine learning has been extensively studied in both academic and industry. However, as the literature on graph learning booms with a vast number of emerging methods and techniques, it becomes increasingly difficult to manually design the optimal machine learning algorithm for different graph-related tasks. To tackle the challenge, automated graph machine learning, which aims at discovering the best hyper-parameter and neural architecture configuration for different graph tasks/data without manual design, is gaining an increasing number of attentions from the research community. In this paper, we extensively discuss automated graph machine learning approaches, covering hyper-parameter optimization (HPO) and neural architecture search (NAS) for graph machine learning. We briefly overview existing libraries designed for either graph machine learning or automated machine learning respectively, and further in depth introduce AutoGL, our dedicated and the world's first open-source library for automated graph machine learning. Also, we describe a tailored benchmark that supports unified, reproducible, and efficient evaluations. Last but not least, we share our insights on future research directions for automated graph machine learning. This paper is the first systematic and comprehensive discussion of approaches, libraries as well as directions for automated graph machine learning.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #599 578 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #599 578 places worse
paper 0.8110 ±0.0090
paper 0.8110 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0607 Δ today 0.0894
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #486 442 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #486 442 places worse
paper 0.8230 ±0.0070
paper 0.8230 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0660 Δ today 0.0667
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #779 638 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #779 638 places worse
paper 0.7450 ±0.0180
403
AutoGL
0.8320 ±0.0060
This paper
511
Ensemble
0.8220 ±0.0040
This paper
518
TPE (50 trials)
0.8210 ±0.0100
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #463 428 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #463 428 places worse
paper 0.7190 ±0.0060
paper 0.7190 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0823 Δ today 0.0890
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #561 517 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #561 517 places worse
paper 0.7090 ±0.0070
paper 0.7090 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0853 Δ today 0.0943
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #713 652 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #713 652 places worse
paper 0.6720 ±0.0090
paper 0.6720 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.1203
259
SAGE
0.7361 ±0.0190
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
407
Ensemble
actual #407 vs paper #570 163 places worse
0.7243 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #407 vs paper #570 163 places worse
paper 0.7080 ±0.0050
paper 0.7080 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0163
414
AutoGL
0.7240 ±0.0060
This paper
421
TPE (50 trials, GCN)
0.7240 ±0.0060
This paper
442
random (10 trials, GAT)
0.7220 ±0.0070
This paper
471
None (GAT)
0.7190 ±0.0060
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #624 606 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #624 606 places worse
paper 0.7870 ±0.0060
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #686 666 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #686 666 places worse
paper 0.7790 ±0.0040
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
125
GraphSAGE
actual #125 vs paper #745 620 places worse
0.8864 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #745 620 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060
paper 0.7680 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.1030 Δ today 0.1184
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
546
AutoGL
0.7930 ±0.0040
This paper
638
Ensemble
0.7850 ±0.0040
This paper

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
0.9330 ±0.0290
357
GIN (random)
0.8760 ±0.0600
This paper
358
AutoGL
0.8760 ±0.0600
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
493
Top-K Pooling (TPE)
0.8390 ±0.1010
This paper
#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 #476 444 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #476 444 places worse
paper 0.6650 ±0.0390
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
351
AutoGL
0.7330 ±0.0440
This paper
399
TPE
0.7230 ±0.0550
This paper
462
Top-K Pooling
0.6950 ±0.0440
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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