Embedding Graphs on Grassmann Manifold

Bingxin Zhou, Xuebin Zheng, Yu Guang Wang, Ming Li, Junbin Gao

Main figure for Embedding Graphs on Grassmann Manifold

Abstract

Learning efficient graph representation is the key to addressing downstream tasks on graphs, such as node or graph property prediction. Given the non-Euclidean structural property of graphs, preserving the original graph data's similarity relationship in the embedded space needs specific tools and a similarity metric. This paper develops. The proposed to a Grassmann point of a low dimensional manifold through singular value decomposition (SVD).

Proposed method: EGG

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DoG
0.9690 ±0.0030
2
GWN-fa
0.9667 ±0.0026
3
GWN-sym
0.9666 ±0.0026
6
GraphSAGE
0.9593 ±0.0025
88
MLP
0.9280 ±0.0020
202
k-means+EGG 0.8 (99.48%)
0.6700 ±0.0201
This paper
203
K-means
0.6410 ±0.0171
This paper
204
k-means+EGG 0.5 (90.73%)
0.5878 ±0.0188
This paper
205
k-means+EGG 0.2 (45.28%)
0.5483 ±0.0250
This paper

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
0.9330 ±0.0290
80
Attention
actual #80 vs paper #611 531 places worse
0.9170 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #80 vs paper #611 531 places worse
paper 0.8025 ±0.0222
paper 0.8025 ±0.0222 Δ today 0.1145
101
TopKPool
actual #101 vs paper #623 522 places worse
0.9130 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #623 522 places worse
paper 0.7984 ±0.0246
paper 0.7984 ±0.0246 Δ today 0.1146
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
545
EGG
0.8253 ±0.0072
This paper
589
EdgePool
actual #589 vs paper #589
0.8101 ±0.0082
actual #589 vs paper #589
paper 0.8101 ±0.0082

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8101 ±0.0082 Δ at pub 0.0511
623
SAGPool
actual #623 vs paper #623
0.7986 ±0.0236
actual #623 vs paper #623
paper 0.7986 ±0.0236

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7986 ±0.0236 Δ at pub 0.0136
660
PanPool
0.7809 ±0.0127
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
162
EGG
0.8131 ±0.0155
This paper
259
SAGPool
actual #259 vs paper #366 107 places worse
0.7910 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #259 vs paper #366 107 places worse
paper 0.7697 ±0.0294

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7697 ±0.0294 Δ at pub 0.0091 Δ today 0.0213
267
EdgePool
actual #267 vs paper #329 62 places worse
0.7779 ±0.0280
actual #267 vs paper #329 62 places worse
paper 0.7779 ±0.0280

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7779 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.0123
308
Attention
0.7822 ±0.0132
This paper
355
TopKPool
0.7706 ±0.0090
This paper
465
PanPool
0.7168 ±0.0445
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
21
EGG
0.7980 ±0.0109
This paper
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
58
TopKPool
actual #58 vs paper #333 275 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #333 275 places worse
paper 0.7366 ±0.0600
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7366 ±0.0600 Δ at pub 0.0402
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
154
SAGPool
actual #154 vs paper #154
0.7595 ±0.0452
actual #154 vs paper #154
paper 0.7595 ±0.0452

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7595 ±0.0452 Δ at pub 0.0006
181
Attention
actual #181 vs paper #181
0.7563 ±0.0113
actual #181 vs paper #181
paper 0.7563 ±0.0113

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7563 ±0.0113 Δ at pub 0.0170
184
EdgePool
actual #184 vs paper #184
0.7560 ±0.0240
actual #184 vs paper #184
paper 0.7560 ±0.0240

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7560 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0330
390
PanPool
0.7241 ±0.0358
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
16
Attention
0.8322 ±0.0030
This paper
18
EGG
0.8294 ±0.0106
This paper
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
39
SAGPool
actual #39 vs paper #39
0.8176 ±0.0157
actual #39 vs paper #39
paper 0.8176 ±0.0157
paper 0.8176 ±0.0157 Δ at pub 0.1476
57
TopKPool
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.8140 ±0.0094
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.8140 ±0.0094
prev best: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)
paper 0.8140 ±0.0094 Δ at pub 0.0384
111
PanPool
0.8022 ±0.0202
This paper
150
EdgePool
actual #150 vs paper #150
0.7920 ±0.0166
actual #150 vs paper #150
paper 0.7920 ±0.0166
paper 0.7920 ±0.0166 Δ at pub 0.1210
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
13
EGG
0.8118 ±0.0114
This paper
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
41
EdgePool
actual #41 vs paper #157 116 places worse
0.7920 ±0.0261
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #157 116 places worse
paper 0.7282 ±0.0140
paper 0.7282 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0638
56
SAGPool
actual #56 vs paper #137 81 places worse
0.7870 ±0.0229
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #137 81 places worse
paper 0.7496 ±0.0360

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7496 ±0.0360 Δ at pub 0.0374
92
Attention
0.7748 ±0.0265
This paper
110
TopKPool
actual #110 vs paper #110
0.7640 ±0.0232
actual #110 vs paper #110
paper 0.7640 ±0.0232

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7640 ±0.0232 Δ at pub 0.0153
158
PanPool
0.7275 ±0.0232
This paper

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
94
TopKPool
0.7814 ±0.0062
This paper
108
EGG
0.7782 ±0.0090
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
124
Attention
actual #124 vs paper #124
0.7744 ±0.0127
actual #124 vs paper #124
paper 0.7744 ±0.0127

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7744 ±0.0127 Δ at pub 0.0160
139
PanPool
0.7718 ±0.0113
This paper
229
SAGPool
0.7536 ±0.0182
This paper
230
EdgePool
0.7530 ±0.0201
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere