NeurIPS 2022

Template based Graph Neural Network with Optimal Transport Distances

Cédric Vincent-Cuaz, Rémi Flamary, Marco Corneli, Titouan Vayer, N. Courty

Main figure for Template based Graph Neural Network with Optimal Transport Distances

Abstract

Current Graph Neural Networks (GNN) architectures generally rely on two important components: node features embedding through message passing, and aggregation with a specialized form of pooling. The structural (or topological) information is implicitly taken into account in these two steps. We propose in this work a novel point of view, which places distances to some learnable graph templates at the core of the graph representation. This distance embedding is constructed thanks to an optimal transport distance: the Fused Gromov-Wasserstein (FGW) distance, which encodes simultaneously feature and structure dissimilarities by solving a soft graph-matching problem. We postulate that the vector of FGW distances to a set of template graphs has a strong discriminative power, which is then fed to a non-linear classifier for final predictions. Distance embedding can be seen as a new layer, and can leverage on existing message passing techniques to promote sensible feature representations. Interestingly enough, in our work the optimal set of template graphs is also learnt in an end-to-end fashion by differentiating through this layer. After describing the corresponding learning procedure, we empirically validate our claim on several synthetic and real life graph classification datasets, where our method is competitive or surpasses kernel and GNN state-of-the-art approaches. We complete our experiments by an ablation study and a sensitivity analysis to parameters.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
This paper
4
TFGW ADJ
0.7380 ±0.0460
This paper
7
WWL
actual #7 vs paper #13 6 places worse
0.7325 ±0.0087
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #13 6 places worse
paper 0.7140 ±0.0510
paper 0.7140 ±0.0510 Δ at pub 0.0185
11
FGW - ADJ
0.7220 ±0.0400
This paper
15
FGW - SP
0.7050 ±0.0620
This paper
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
18
WL
actual #18 vs paper #18
0.6950 ±0.0320
actual #18 vs paper #18
paper 0.6950 ±0.0320
paper 0.6950 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.1045
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #73 41 places worse
0.6220 ±0.0360
actual #32 vs paper #73 41 places worse
paper 0.6220 ±0.0360
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6220 ±0.0360 Δ at pub 0.0190 Δ today 0.0547
33
DropGIN
actual #33 vs paper #42 9 places worse
0.6750 ±0.0642
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #42 9 places worse
paper 0.6580 ±0.0270
best today: Union Subgraph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6580 ±0.0270 Δ today 0.0170
34
OT-GNN
0.6730 ±0.0430
This paper
70
DiffPool
actual #70 vs paper #81 11 places worse
0.6253
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #81 11 places worse
paper 0.6100 ±0.0310

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6100 ±0.0310 Δ at pub 0.0153
97
WEGL
0.6000 ±0.0280
This paper
123
PatchySan
0.5590 ±0.0450
This paper
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
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