KDD 2022

Condensing Graphs via One-Step Gradient Matching

Wei Jin, Xianfeng Tang, Haoming Jiang, Zheng Li, Danqing Zhang, Jiliang Tang, Bing Yin

Main figure for Condensing Graphs via One-Step Gradient Matching

Abstract

As training deep learning models on large dataset takes a lot of time and resources, it is desired to construct a small synthetic dataset with which we can train deep learning models sufficiently. There are recent works that have explored solutions on condensing image datasets through complex bi-level optimization. For instance, dataset condensation (DC) matches network gradients w.r.t. large-real data and small-synthetic data, where the network weights are optimized for multiple steps at each outer iteration. However, existing approaches have their inherent limitations: (1) they are not directly applicable to graphs where the data is discrete; and (2) the condensation process is computationally expensive due to the involved nested optimization. To bridge the gap, we investigate efficient dataset condensation tailored for graph datasets where we model the discrete graph structure as a probabilistic model. We further propose a one-step gradient matching scheme, which performs gradient matching for only one single step without training the network weights. Our theoretical analysis shows this strategy can generate synthetic graphs that lead to lower classification loss on real graphs. Extensive experiments on various graph datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed method. In particular, we are able to reduce the dataset size by $90$\

Proposed method: one-step gradient matching scheme

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
0.9004
574
Whole Dataset
0.8150
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
487
Whole Dataset
0.7170
This paper
559
one-step gradient matching scheme
0.7100
This paper
572
GCond
actual #572 vs paper #584 12 places worse
0.7080 ±0.0450
best reported
actual #572 vs paper #584 12 places worse
paper 0.7060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7060 Δ today 0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
547
Whole Dataset
0.7930
This paper
690
GCond
0.7790
This paper
771
one-step gradient matching scheme
0.7600
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
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
214
Whole Dataset
0.7570 ±0.0070
This paper
272
one-step gradient matching scheme
0.7310 ±0.0040
This paper
277
DCG
actual #277 vs paper #284 7 places worse
0.7280 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #277 vs paper #284 7 places worse
paper 0.7180 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7180 ±0.0130 Δ today 0.0100
280
Herding
actual #280 vs paper #283 3 places worse
0.7250 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #280 vs paper #283 3 places worse
paper 0.7210 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7210 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0040
281
K-Center
actual #281 vs paper #283 2 places worse
0.7250 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #281 vs paper #283 2 places worse
paper 0.7210 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7210 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0040
284
Random
actual #284 vs paper #284
0.7210 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #284 vs paper #284
paper 0.7190 ±0.0090

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7190 ±0.0090 Δ today 0.0020

ogbg-molpcba

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ROC-AUC; the dataset default is AP. Values below use ROC-AUC only.

Sorted by ROC-AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
PrunE
0.8159 ±0.0535
2
EGTAS
0.7919 ±0.0137
3
UGTs
0.7840
12
GIN
0.7042 ±0.0478
31
Whole Dataset
0.6460 ±0.0040
This paper
32
one-step gradient matching scheme
0.6200 ±0.0070
This paper
34
Herding
0.6170 ±0.0030
This paper
35
Random
0.6060 ±0.0200
This paper
36
DCG
0.5790 ±0.0320
This paper
37
K-Center
0.5760 ±0.0190
This paper

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
62
GatedGCN
0.7133 ±0.0039
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
126
MLP
0.5634 ±0.0018
134
Whole Dataset
0.5075 ±0.0014
This paper
135
one-step gradient matching scheme
0.3534 ±0.0014
This paper
136
DCG
0.3447 ±0.0052
This paper
137
Herding
0.3394 ±0.0037
This paper
138
Random
0.3056 ±0.0081
This paper
139
K-Center
0.2417 ±0.0051
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)