ICML 2022

Alternately Optimized Graph Neural Networks

Haoyu Han, Xiaorui Liu, Torkamani Ali, Feng Shi, Victor E. Lee, Jiliang Tang

Main figure for Alternately Optimized Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have greatly advanced the semi-supervised node classification task on graphs. The majority of existing GNNs are trained in an end-to-end manner that can be viewed as tackling a bi-level optimization problem. This process is often inefficient in computation and memory usage. In this work, we propose a new optimization framework for semi-supervised learning on graphs. The proposed framework can be conveniently solved by the alternating optimization algorithms, resulting in significantly improved efficiency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed method can achieve comparable or better performance with state-of-the-art baselines while it has significantly better computation and memory efficiency.

Proposed method: ALT-OPT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 15 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #471 469 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #471 469 places worse
paper 0.8924 ±0.0142
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #451 443 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #451 443 places worse
paper 0.8994 ±0.0122
paper 0.8994 ±0.0122 Δ at pub 0.0248 Δ today 0.0638
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #405 384 places worse
0.9573 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #405 384 places worse
paper 0.9087 ±0.0114
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #522 472 places worse
0.9511 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #522 472 places worse
paper 0.8350 ±0.0290
paper 0.8350 ±0.0290 Δ at pub 0.0810 Δ today 0.1161
363
SIGN
actual #363 vs paper #501 138 places worse
0.9170 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #363 vs paper #501 138 places worse
paper 0.8611 ±0.0066
paper 0.8611 ±0.0066 Δ at pub 0.0559 Δ today 0.0559
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
394
ALT-OPT
0.9123 ±0.0126
This paper
509
C&S
0.8487 ±0.0104
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #433 431 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #433 431 places worse
paper 0.7917 ±0.0192
paper 0.7917 ±0.0192 Δ at pub 0.0868 Δ today 0.1495
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #438 435 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #438 435 places worse
paper 0.7838 ±0.0227
paper 0.7838 ±0.0227 Δ at pub 0.0855 Δ today 0.1560
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #435 377 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #435 377 places worse
paper 0.7907 ±0.0234
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #462 380 places worse
0.9022 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #462 380 places worse
paper 0.7300 ±0.0200
320
MLP
0.8463
378
SIGN
actual #378 vs paper #462 84 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #378 vs paper #462 84 places worse
paper 0.7304 ±0.0115
paper 0.7304 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.1006 Δ today 0.1006
434
ALT-OPT
0.7912 ±0.0250
This paper
461
C&S
0.7325 ±0.0209
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
6
GAT
actual #6 vs paper #245 239 places worse
0.9782 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #245 239 places worse
paper 0.9281 ±0.0103
paper 0.9281 ±0.0103 Δ at pub 0.0339 Δ today 0.0501
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #224 215 places worse
0.9774 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #224 215 places worse
paper 0.9329 ±0.0080
paper 0.9329 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0321 Δ today 0.0445
17
SAGE
0.9739 ±0.0018
42
APPNP
actual #42 vs paper #218 176 places worse
0.9654 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #218 176 places worse
paper 0.9349 ±0.0067
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
70
SGC
actual #70 vs paper #227 157 places worse
0.9580 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #227 157 places worse
paper 0.9323 ±0.0059
paper 0.9323 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0257 Δ today 0.0257
171
ALT-OPT
0.9463 ±0.0031
This paper
229
C&S
0.9323 ±0.0055
This paper
240
SIGN
actual #240 vs paper #240
0.9303 ±0.0115
actual #240 vs paper #240
paper 0.9303 ±0.0115

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9303 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0023

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #248 242 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #248 242 places worse
paper 0.7570 ±0.0019
29
APPNP
actual #29 vs paper #234 205 places worse
0.8634
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #234 205 places worse
paper 0.7662 ±0.0013
41
C&S
actual #41 vs paper #229 188 places worse
0.8511 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #229 188 places worse
paper 0.7711 ±0.0006
paper 0.7711 ±0.0006 Δ today 0.0800
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
paper 0.8052 ±0.0016
paper 0.8052 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0258
84
ALT-OPT
0.8264 ±0.0021
This paper
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #290 196 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #290 196 places worse
paper 0.7429 ±0.0012
paper 0.7429 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.0791
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
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