Semi-Supervised Hierarchical Graph Classification

Jia Li, Yongfeng Huang, Heng Chang, Yu Rong

Main figure for Semi-Supervised Hierarchical Graph Classification

Abstract

Node classification and graph classification are two graph learning problems that predict the class label of a node and the class label of a graph respectively. A node of a graph usually represents a real-world entity, e.g., a user in a social network, or a document in a document citation network. In this work, we consider a more challenging but practically useful setting, in which a node itself is a graph instance. This leads to a hierarchical graph perspective which arises in many domains such as social network, biological network and document collection. We study the node classification problem in the hierarchical graph where a ``node'' is a graph instance. As labels are usually limited, we design a novel semi-supervised solution named SEAL-CI. SEAL-CI adopts an iterative framework that takes turns to update two modules, one working at the graph instance level and the other at the hierarchical graph level. To enforce a consistency among different levels of hierarchical graph, we propose the Hierarchical Graph Mutual Information (HGMI) and further present a way to compute HGMI with theoretical guarantee. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this hierarchical graph modeling and the proposed SEAL-CI method on text and social network data.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
This paper
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
161
PSCN
actual #161 vs paper #161
0.7589 ±0.0276
actual #161 vs paper #161
paper 0.7589 ±0.0276
prev best: Orthogonal Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7589 ±0.0276 Δ at pub 0.0089
164
SP
actual #164 vs paper #239 75 places worse
0.7580 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #164 vs paper #239 75 places worse
paper 0.7507 ±0.0054

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7507 ±0.0054 Δ at pub 0.0073
190
WL
actual #190 vs paper #369 179 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #369 179 places worse
paper 0.7292 ±0.0056
paper 0.7292 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0268
302
RW
0.7422 ±0.0042
This paper
350
graph2vec
0.7330 ±0.0205
This paper
425
GK
0.7167 ±0.0055
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
This paper
25
WL
actual #25 vs paper #78 53 places worse
0.7978 ±0.0036
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #78 53 places worse
paper 0.7795 ±0.0070
paper 0.7795 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0183 Δ today 0.0183
43
GCN
0.7912 ±0.0307
63
GK
0.7845 ±0.0026
This paper
101
PSCN
0.7712 ±0.0241
This paper
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)