SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges

Hongyu Guo, Sun Sun

Main figure for SoftEdge: Regularizing Graph Classification with Random Soft Edges

Abstract

Augmented graphs play a vital role in regularizing Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), which leverage information exchange along edges in graphs, in the form of message passing, for learning. Due to their effectiveness, simple edge and node manipulations (e.g., addition and deletion) have been widely used in graph augmentation. Nevertheless, such common augmentation techniques can dramatically change the semantics of the original graph, causing overaggressive augmentation and thus under-fitting in the GNN learning. To address this problem arising from dropping or adding graph edges and nodes, we propose SoftEdge, which assigns random weights to a portion of the edges of a given graph for augmentation. The synthetic graph generated by SoftEdge maintains the same nodes and their connectivities as the original graph, thus mitigating the semantic changes of the original graph. We empirically show that this simple method obtains superior accuracy to popular node and edge manipulation approaches and notable resilience to the accuracy degradation with the GNN depth.

Proposed method: SoftEdge

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

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
actual #39 vs paper #356 317 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #356 317 places worse
paper 0.8760
paper 0.8760 Δ at pub 0.0570
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
116
DropEdge
actual #116 vs paper #343 227 places worse
0.8780
actual #116 vs paper #343 227 places worse
paper 0.8780
paper 0.8780 Δ at pub 0.0230
286
SoftEdge
0.8890
This paper
363
DropNode
actual #363 vs paper #363
0.8750
actual #363 vs paper #363
paper 0.8750
paper 0.8750 Δ at pub 0.0160
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
461
ResGCN
0.8460
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #125 123 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #125 123 places worse
paper 0.8210 ±0.0010
paper 0.8210 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.1724
3
GCN
0.9727
40
SoftEdge
0.8390 ±0.0010
This paper
111
DropNode
actual #111 vs paper #111
0.8240
actual #111 vs paper #111
paper 0.8240
paper 0.8240 Δ at pub 0.0190
117
DropEdge
actual #117 vs paper #117
0.8230 ±0.0010
actual #117 vs paper #117
paper 0.8230 ±0.0010
paper 0.8230 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0120
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
158
ResGCN
0.8140 ±0.0030
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 #294 262 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #294 262 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0010

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7440 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0170 Δ today 0.0440
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
177
SoftEdge
0.7570 ±0.0030
This paper
193
DropEdge
actual #193 vs paper #193
0.7550 ±0.0020
actual #193 vs paper #193
paper 0.7550 ±0.0020
paper 0.7550 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0050
233
ResGCN
actual #233 vs paper #275 42 places worse
0.7511 ±0.0322
best reported
actual #233 vs paper #275 42 places worse
paper 0.7470 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7470 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0041
234
DropNode
actual #234 vs paper #271 37 places worse
0.7511 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #234 vs paper #271 37 places worse
paper 0.7480 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7480 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0031
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #145 113 places worse
0.6767 ±0.0583
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #145 113 places worse
paper 0.5330 ±0.0010
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5330 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0700 Δ today 0.1437
78
SoftEdge
0.6150 ±0.0040
This paper
99
DropEdge
actual #99 vs paper #99
0.5970 ±0.0020
actual #99 vs paper #99
paper 0.5970 ±0.0020
paper 0.5970 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0310
108
DropNode
actual #108 vs paper #108
0.5900 ±0.0040
actual #108 vs paper #108
paper 0.5900 ±0.0040
paper 0.5900 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0580
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
140
ResGCN
0.5410 ±0.0140
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published