KDD 2022

Model Degradation Hinders Deep Graph Neural Networks

Wentao Zhang, Zeang Sheng, Ziqi Yin, Yuezihan Jiang, Yikuan Xia, Jun Gao, Zhi Yang, Bin Cui

Main figure for Model Degradation Hinders Deep Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved great success in various graph mining tasks. However, drastic performance degradation is always observed when a GNN is stacked with many layers. As a result, most GNNs only have shallow architectures, which limits their expressive power and exploitation of deep neighborhoods. Most recent studies attribute the performance degradation of deep GNNs to the over-smoothing issue. In this paper, we disentangle the conventional graph convolution operation into two independent operations: Propagation (P) and Transformation (T). Following this, the depth of a GNN can be split into the propagation depth ($D_p$) and the transformation depth ($D_t$). Through extensive experiments, we find that the major cause for the performance degradation of deep GNNs is the model degradation issue caused by large $D_t$ rather than the over-smoothing issue mainly caused by large $D_p$. Further, we present Adaptive Initial Residual (AIR), a plug-and-play module compatible with all kinds of GNN architectures, to alleviate the model degradation issue and the over-smoothing issue simultaneously. Experimental results on six real-world datasets demonstrate that GNNs equipped with AIR outperform most GNNs with shallow architectures owing to the benefits of both large $D_p$ and $D_t$, while the time costs associated with AIR can be ignored.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
72
GBP
actual #72 vs paper #221 149 places worse
0.8350 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #221 149 places worse
paper 0.7768 ±0.0025
paper 0.7768 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0582
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #232 155 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #232 155 places worse
paper 0.7683 ±0.0039
paper 0.7683 ±0.0039 Δ at pub 0.0627
78
S^2GC
actual #78 vs paper #229 151 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #78 vs paper #229 151 places worse
paper 0.7713 ±0.0024
paper 0.7713 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0597
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #215 132 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #215 132 places worse
paper 0.7829 ±0.0016
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #244 150 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #244 150 places worse
paper 0.7594 ±0.0022
paper 0.7594 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0626
112
SGC+AIR
0.8144 ±0.0016
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
paper 0.6329 ±0.0019
paper 0.6329 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0281 Δ today 0.1581
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
17
SGC+AIR
0.6723 ±0.0020
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #68 30 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #68 30 places worse
paper 0.6428 ±0.0014
52
GraphSAGE
actual #52 vs paper #63 11 places worse
0.6580
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #63 11 places worse
paper 0.6483 ±0.0015
59
GBP
actual #59 vs paper #59
0.6524 ±0.0013
actual #59 vs paper #59
paper 0.6524 ±0.0013

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6524 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0001
64
S^2GC
actual #64 vs paper #64
0.6473 ±0.0021
actual #64 vs paper #64
paper 0.6473 ±0.0021

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6473 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0003
95
MLP
0.4960 ±0.0030
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)