Equivariant and Stable Positional Encoding for More Powerful Graph Neural Networks
Abstract
Graph neural networks (GNN) have shown great advantages in many graph-based learning tasks but often fail to predict accurately for a task based on sets of nodes such as link/motif prediction and so on. Many works have recently proposed to address this problem by using random node features or node distance features. However, they suffer from either slow convergence, inaccurate prediction or high complexity. In this work, we revisit GNNs that allow using positional features of nodes given by positional encoding (PE) techniques such as Laplacian Eigenmap, Deepwalk, etc.. GNNs with PE often get criticized because they are not generalizable to unseen graphs (inductive) or stable. Here, we study these issues in a principled way and propose a provable solution, a class of GNN layers termed with rigorous mathematical analysis. uses separate channels to update the original node features and positional features. imposes permutation equivariance w.r.t. the original node features and imposes $O(p)$ (orthogonal group) equivariance w.r.t. the positional features simultaneously where $p$ is the dimension of used positional features. Extensive link prediction experiments over 8 real-world networks demonstrate the advantages of in generalization and scalability.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 5 datasets 9 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 best reported | best at pub: SplineCNN: Fast Geometric Deep Learning with Continuous B-Spline Kernels (2017) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| 39 | SAGE | 0.8911
±0.0012 | |
| 44 | GAT | 0.8897
±0.0014 best reported | best at pub: Learned Low Precision Graph Neural Networks (2020) |
| 505 | PEG-DW | 0.8224
±0.0002 | This paper |
| 515 | PEG-LE | 0.8216
±0.0002 | This paper |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) best today: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 462 | PEG-LE | 0.7193
±0.0001 | This paper |
| 538 | PEG-DW | 0.7122
±0.0001 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LGTL | 0.9518
±0.0011 | |
| 2 | MixHop (LO) | 0.9513
±0.0038 | |
| 3 | GraphSAGE (LO) | 0.9511
±0.0036 | |
| 18 | GCN | 0.9296
±0.0015 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 20 | GAT | 0.9233
±0.0018 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 116 | SAGE | 0.8881
±0.0015 | |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | |
| 471 | PEG-LE | 0.7985
±0.0001 | This paper |
| 474 | PEG-DW | 0.7983
±0.0002 | This paper |
OGB
| # | Model | Hits@50 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PROXI | 0.7650
±0.0027 | |
| 2 | OGB Leader | 0.7129
±0.0018 | |
| 3 | GIDN | 0.7096
±0.0055 | |
| 9 | GCN | 0.6621
±0.0033 best reported | best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020) best today: On the Impact of Feature Heterophily on Link Prediction with Graph Neural Networks (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 20 | SEAL | 0.6474
±0.0043 best reported | best at pub: Labeling Trick: A Theory of Using Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Node Representation Learning (NeurIPS 2020) best today: Node Identifiers: Compact, Discrete Representations for Efficient Graph Learning (ICLR 2024) |
| 28 | SAGE | 0.5944
±0.0137 | |
| 41 | GraphSAGE | 0.5463
±0.0112 best reported | best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020) |
| 43 | PEG-DW | 0.5433
±0.0006 | This paper |
| 44 | PE-SAGE-DW | 0.5417
±0.0054 | This paper |
| 64 | PE-SAGE-LE | 0.4975
±0.0067 | This paper |
| 78 | PEG-LE | 0.4876
±0.0092 | This paper |
| 91 | DW | 0.4479
±0.0002 | This paper |
| 94 | MLP | 0.4438
±0.0347 | |
| 114 | GNN-trans. | 0.1119
±0.0042 | This paper |
| 121 | LE | 0.0012
±0.0002 | This paper |
| # | Model | Hits@20 ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ELGNN | 0.9777
±0.0037 | |
| 2 | GIDN | 0.9542 | |
| 3 | AGDN | 0.9538
±0.0094 | |
| 20 | SAGE | 0.6719
±0.0118 | |
| 24 | GCN | 0.3711
±0.0021 | prev best: OGB (NeurIPS 2020) best today: Link Prediction with Untrained Message Passing Layers (2024) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 35 | PE-SAGE-DW | 0.5616
±0.0550 | This paper |
| 38 | GraphSAGE | 0.5390
±0.0474 best reported | best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020) best today: Ensemble Learning for Graph Neural Networks (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 41 | PE-SAGE-LE | 0.5149
±0.0971 | This paper |
| 43 | SEAL | 0.4974
±0.0239 best reported | best at pub: Labeling Trick: A Theory of Using Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Node Representation Learning (NeurIPS 2020) best today: Link Prediction with Untrained Message Passing Layers (2024) |
| 45 | PEG-DW | 0.4793
±0.0021 | This paper |
| 60 | PEG-LE | 0.3016
±0.0047 | This paper |
| 88 | GNN-trans. | 0.0922
±0.0021 | This paper |
| 95 | PGNN | 0.0174
±0.0019 | This paper |
| 96 | DW | 0.0002 | This paper |
| 97 | LE | 0.0002 | This paper |
