NeurIPS 2022

Metropolis-Hastings Data Augmentation for Graph Neural Networks

Hyeon-ju Park, Seunghun Lee, S. Kim, Jinyoung Park, Jisu Jeong, KyungHyun Kim, Jung-Woo Ha, Hyunwoo J. Kim

Main figure for Metropolis-Hastings Data Augmentation for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) often suffer from weak-generalization due to sparsely labeled data despite their promising results on various graph-based tasks. Data augmentation is a prevalent remedy to improve the generalization ability of models in many domains. However, due to the non-Euclidean nature of data space and the dependencies between samples, designing effective augmentation on graphs is challenging. In this paper, we propose a novel framework Metropolis-Hastings Data Augmentation (MH-Aug) that draws augmented graphs from an explicit target distribution for semi-supervised learning. MH-Aug produces a sequence of augmented graphs from the target distribution enables flexible control of the strength and diversity of augmentation. Since the direct sampling from the complex target distribution is challenging, we adopt the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm to obtain the augmented samples. We also propose a simple and effective semi-supervised learning strategy with generated samples from MH-Aug. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that MH-Aug can generate a sequence of samples according to the target distribution to significantly improve the performance of GNNs.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 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
0.9004
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #423 380 places worse
0.8900
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #423 380 places worse
paper 0.8304 ±0.0037
paper 0.8304 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0596
140
Vanilla
actual #140 vs paper #505 365 places worse
0.8710
best reported
actual #140 vs paper #505 365 places worse
paper 0.8223 ±0.0046
221
MH-Aug
0.8516 ±0.0035
This paper
307
GraphMix
actual #307 vs paper #307
0.8394 ±0.0057
best reported
actual #307 vs paper #307
paper 0.8390 ±0.0057

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8390 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0004
322
SSL
0.8380 ±0.0073
This paper
355
GAuG-O
0.8360 ±0.0050
This paper
342
BVAT
0.8360 ±0.0050
This paper
357
UDA*
0.8359 ±0.0061
This paper
374
GAug-M
0.8350 ±0.0040
This paper
494
AdaEdge
0.8230 ±0.0080
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
24
DropEdge
actual #24 vs paper #461 437 places worse
0.8130
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #461 437 places worse
paper 0.7193 ±0.0031
paper 0.7193 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0937
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
161
MH-Aug (w/ Reg)
0.7549 ±0.0029
This paper
169
Vanilla
actual #169 vs paper #493 324 places worse
0.7530
best reported
actual #169 vs paper #493 324 places worse
paper 0.7164 ±0.0031
191
GraphMix
actual #191 vs paper #191
0.7470 ±0.0059
actual #191 vs paper #191
paper 0.7470 ±0.0059

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7470 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0089
272
UDA*
0.7356 ±0.0041
This paper
336
SSL
0.7295 ±0.0062
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
364
GAuG-O
0.7270 ±0.0070
This paper
430
GAug-M
0.7230 ±0.0040
This paper
633
AdaEdge
0.6970 ±0.0090
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