ICLR 2022

Equivariant and Stable Positional Encoding for More Powerful Graph Neural Networks

Hongya Wang, Haoteng Yin, Muhan Zhang, Pan Li

Main figure for 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

#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 #573 552 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #573 552 places worse
paper 0.8150 ±0.0005
paper 0.8150 ±0.0005 Δ at pub 0.0567 Δ today 0.0854
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #424 380 places worse
paper 0.8303 ±0.0007
paper 0.8303 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0587 Δ today 0.0594
505
PEG-DW
0.8224 ±0.0002
This paper
515
PEG-LE
0.8216 ±0.0002
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 #386 351 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #386 351 places worse
paper 0.7252 ±0.0007
paper 0.7252 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0761 Δ today 0.0828
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #599 555 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #599 555 places worse
paper 0.7038 ±0.0005
paper 0.7038 ±0.0005 Δ at pub 0.0905 Δ today 0.0995
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
#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 #583 565 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #583 565 places worse
paper 0.7903 ±0.0003
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #582 562 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #582 562 places worse
paper 0.7906 ±0.0003
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

#ModelHits@50 ↑Paper
1
PROXI
0.7650 ±0.0027
2
OGB Leader
0.7129 ±0.0018
3
GIDN
0.7096 ±0.0055
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #93 84 places worse
0.6621 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #93 84 places worse
paper 0.4462 ±0.0001
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.4462 ±0.0001 Δ at pub 0.0252 Δ today 0.2159
20
SEAL
actual #20 vs paper #39 19 places worse
0.6474 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #39 19 places worse
paper 0.5471 ±0.0001
28
SAGE
0.5944 ±0.0137
41
GraphSAGE
actual #41 vs paper #79 38 places worse
0.5463 ±0.0112
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #79 38 places worse
paper 0.4845 ±0.0080
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.4845 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0618 Δ today 0.0618
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
#ModelHits@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
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
0.3711 ±0.0021
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
paper 0.3711 ±0.0021
prev best: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3711 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.2765
35
PE-SAGE-DW
0.5616 ±0.0550
This paper
38
GraphSAGE
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
0.5390 ±0.0474
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #39 1 place worse
paper 0.5281 ±0.0875
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5281 ±0.0875 Δ at pub 0.0109 Δ today 0.0109
41
PE-SAGE-LE
0.5149 ±0.0971
This paper
43
SEAL
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
0.4974 ±0.0239
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
paper 0.3023 ±0.0024
paper 0.3023 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0033 Δ today 0.1951
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
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