ICLR 2022

Graph Auto-Encoder Via Neighborhood Wasserstein Reconstruction

Mingyue Tang, Carl Yang, Pan Li

Main figure for Graph Auto-Encoder Via Neighborhood Wasserstein Reconstruction

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have drawn significant research attention recently, mostly under the setting of semi-supervised learning. When task-agnostic representations are preferred or supervision is simply unavailable, the auto-encoder framework comes in handy with a natural graph reconstruction objective for unsupervised GNN training. However, existing graph auto-encoders are designed to reconstruct the direct links, so GNNs trained in this way are only optimized towards proximity-oriented graph mining tasks, and will fall short when the topological structures matter. In this work, we revisit the graph encoding process of GNNs which essentially learns to encode the neighborhood information of each node into an embedding vector, and propose a novel graph decoder to reconstruct the entire neighborhood information regarding both proximity and structure via Neighborhood Wasserstein Reconstruction (NWR). Specifically, from the GNN embedding of each node, NWR jointly predicts its node degree and neighbor feature distribution, where the distribution prediction adopts an optimal-transport loss based on the Wasserstein distance. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world network datasets show that the unsupervised node representations learned with NWR have much more advantageous in structure-oriented graph mining tasks, while also achieving competitive performance in proximity-oriented ones..

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
304
DGI
actual #304 vs paper #576 272 places worse
0.7581 ±0.0503
best reported
actual #304 vs paper #576 272 places worse
paper 0.5297 ±0.0564
351
MVGRL
actual #351 vs paper #555 204 places worse
0.7301 ±0.0552
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #555 204 places worse
paper 0.5675 ±0.0597
395
NWR-GAE full
0.6962 ±0.0666
This paper
523
VGAE
actual #523 vs paper #608 85 places worse
0.5920
best reported
actual #523 vs paper #608 85 places worse
paper 0.3918 ±0.0896
526
GAE
actual #526 vs paper #530 4 places worse
0.5909 ±0.1626
best reported
actual #526 vs paper #530 4 places worse
paper 0.5878 ±0.0341

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5878 ±0.0341 Δ today 0.0031
585
struc2vec
actual #585 vs paper #594 9 places worse
0.4931 ±0.0322
best reported
actual #585 vs paper #594 9 places worse
paper 0.4729 ±0.0721

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4729 ±0.0721 Δ today 0.0202
589
GraphCL
actual #589 vs paper #597 8 places worse
0.4867 ±0.0437
best reported
actual #589 vs paper #597 8 places worse
paper 0.4648 ±0.0585

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4648 ±0.0585 Δ today 0.0219
590
Node2Vec
0.4864 ±0.0292
This paper
595
DeepWalk
actual #595 vs paper #606 11 places worse
0.4700 ±0.2928
best reported
actual #595 vs paper #606 11 places worse
paper 0.4189 ±0.0781

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4189 ±0.0781 Δ today 0.0511
603
ARGVA
0.4324 ±0.0538
This paper
605
RolX
0.4256 ±0.0713
This paper
613
GraphWave
0.3745 ±0.0709
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
340
MVGRL
actual #340 vs paper #451 111 places worse
0.6430
best reported
actual #340 vs paper #451 111 places worse
paper 0.5351 ±0.0326
350
DGI
actual #350 vs paper #520 170 places worse
0.6335
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #520 170 places worse
paper 0.4648 ±0.0797
354
GAE
actual #354 vs paper #524 170 places worse
0.6309 ±0.0987
best reported
actual #354 vs paper #524 170 places worse
paper 0.4540 ±0.0999
paper 0.4540 ±0.0999 Δ today 0.1769
386
VGAE
actual #386 vs paper #494 108 places worse
0.5919
best reported
actual #386 vs paper #494 108 places worse
paper 0.4932 ±0.0919

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4932 ±0.0919 Δ today 0.0987
393
NWR-GAE full
0.5864 ±0.0561
This paper
500
DeepWalk
actual #500 vs paper #549 49 places worse
0.4867 ±0.2784
best reported
actual #500 vs paper #549 49 places worse
paper 0.4121 ±0.0340

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4121 ±0.0340 Δ today 0.0746
513
GraphCL
actual #513 vs paper #527 14 places worse
0.4722 ±0.0450
best reported
actual #513 vs paper #527 14 places worse
paper 0.4486 ±0.0373

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4486 ±0.0373 Δ today 0.0236
524
GraphWave
0.4596 ±0.0220
This paper
542
Node2Vec
actual #542 vs paper #553 11 places worse
0.4294
best reported
actual #542 vs paper #553 11 places worse
paper 0.4054 ±0.0162

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4054 ±0.0162 Δ today 0.0240
551
ARGVA
0.4108 ±0.0485
This paper
571
struc2vec
actual #571 vs paper #576 5 places worse
0.3022 ±0.0587
best reported
actual #571 vs paper #576 5 places worse
paper 0.2372 ±0.1369

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2372 ±0.1369 Δ today 0.0650
575
RolX
0.2567 ±0.1178
This paper

Hypergraph Benchmarks

House

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 12 values on Homogeneity , 12 values on Completeness and 12 values on Silhouette .

Sorted by Homogeneity. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultHomogeneity ↑Completeness ↑Silhouette ↑Paper
3
GAE
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
7
NWR-GAE
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
1
RolX
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
2
GraphWave
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
4
DGI
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
5
GraphCL
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
6
MVGRL
—
1.0000
1.0000
0.9900
Accuracy —
Completeness 1.0000
Silhouette 0.9900
This paper
8
struc2vec
—
0.9900
0.9900
0.4500
Accuracy —
Completeness 0.9900
Silhouette 0.4500
This paper
9
ARGVA
—
0.2800
0.2800
0.1900
Accuracy —
Completeness 0.2800
Silhouette 0.1900
This paper
10
VGAE
—
0.2500
0.2700
0.2100
Accuracy —
Completeness 0.2700
Silhouette 0.2100
This paper
11
DeepWalk
—
0.0100
0.0100
0.2900
Accuracy —
Completeness 0.0100
Silhouette 0.2900
This paper
12
Node2Vec
—
0.0100
0.0100
0.3300
Accuracy —
Completeness 0.0100
Silhouette 0.3300
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere