NeurIPS 2022

NAS-Bench-Graph: Benchmarking Graph Neural Architecture Search

Yi Qin, Ziwei Zhang, Xin Wang, Zeyang Zhang, Wenwu Zhu

Main figure for NAS-Bench-Graph: Benchmarking Graph Neural Architecture Search

Abstract

Graph neural architecture search (GraphNAS) has recently aroused considerable attention in both academia and industry. However, two key challenges seriously hinder the further research of GraphNAS. First, since there is no consensus for the experimental setting, the empirical results in different research papers are often not comparable and even not reproducible, leading to unfair comparisons. Secondly, GraphNAS often needs extensive computations, which makes it highly inefficient and inaccessible to researchers without access to large-scale computation. To solve these challenges, we propose NAS-Bench-Graph, a tailored benchmark that supports unified, reproducible, and efficient evaluations for GraphNAS. Specifically, we construct a unified, expressive yet compact search space, covering 26,206 unique graph neural network (GNN) architectures and propose a principled evaluation protocol. To avoid unnecessary repetitive training, we have trained and evaluated all of these architectures on nine representative graph datasets, recording detailed metrics including train, validation, and test performance in each epoch, the latency, the number of parameters, etc. Based on our proposed benchmark, the performance of GNN architectures can be directly obtained by a look-up table without any further computation, which enables fair, fully reproducible, and efficient comparisons. To demonstrate its usage, we make in-depth analyses of our proposed NAS-Bench-Graph, revealing several interesting findings for GraphNAS. We also showcase how the benchmark can be easily compatible with GraphNAS open libraries such as AutoGL and NNI. To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first benchmark for graph neural architecture search.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets

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
503
RL
0.8227 ±0.0021
This paper
523
Random
0.8209 ±0.0008
This paper
525
GNAS
0.8204 ±0.0017
This paper
549
EA
0.8185 ±0.0020
This paper
556
Auto-GNN
0.8180
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
569
GNAS
0.7089 ±0.0016
This paper
575
Auto-GNN
0.7076 ±0.0012
This paper
581
RL
0.7066 ±0.0012
This paper
593
Random
0.7049 ±0.0008
This paper
596
EA
0.7048 ±0.0012
This paper
#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
683
EA
0.7796 ±0.0012
This paper
684
RL
0.7796 ±0.0009
This paper
686
Random
0.7791 ±0.0007
This paper
698
GNAS
0.7779 ±0.0002
This paper
703
Auto-GNN
0.7769 ±0.0016
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
290
Random
0.9244 ±0.0002
This paper
291
GNAS
0.9243 ±0.0003
This paper
292
EA
0.9243 ±0.0002
This paper
293
RL
0.9242 ±0.0006
This paper
304
Auto-GNN
0.9238 ±0.0001
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
126
Random
actual #126 vs paper #257 131 places worse
0.9540 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #257 131 places worse
paper 0.9235 ±0.0005
paper 0.9235 ±0.0005 Δ today 0.0305
255
RL
0.9248 ±0.0003
This paper
256
GNAS
0.9243 ±0.0004
This paper
257
Auto-GNN
0.9242 ±0.0016
This paper
258
EA
0.9222 ±0.0008
This paper

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIANT-XRT
0.7612 ±0.0016
2
GEGCN
0.7576 ±0.0064
3
AGDN
0.7522 ±0.0007
23
GCN
0.7300 ±0.0017
35
Auto-GNN
0.7213 ±0.0003
This paper
36
RL
0.7213 ±0.0005
This paper
39
Random
0.7204 ±0.0005
This paper
41
GNAS
0.7200 ±0.0002
This paper
48
EA
0.7191 ±0.0006
This paper
107
MLP
0.5765 ±0.0012
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere