Comprehensive Graph Gradual Pruning for Sparse Training in Graph Neural Networks

Chuang Liu, Xueqi Ma, Yinbing Zhan, Liang Ding, Dapeng Tao, Bo Du, Wenbin Hu, Danilo P. Mandic

Main figure for Comprehensive Graph Gradual Pruning for Sparse Training in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) tend to suffer from high computation costs due to the exponentially increasing scale of graph data and the number of model parameters, which restricts their utility in practical applications. To this end, some recent works focus on sparsifying GNNs (including graph structures and model parameters) with the lottery ticket hypothesis (LTH) to reduce inference costs while maintaining performance levels. However, the LTH-based methods suffer from two major drawbacks: 1) they require exhaustive and iterative training of dense models, resulting in an extremely large training computation cost, and 2) they only trim graph structures and model parameters but ignore the node feature dimension, where significant redundancy exists. To overcome the above limitations, we propose a comprehensive graph gradual pruning framework termed CGP. This is achieved by designing a during-training graph pruning paradigm to dynamically prune GNNs within one training process. Unlike LTH-based methods, the proposed CGP approach requires no re-training, which significantly reduces the computation costs. Furthermore, we design a co-sparsifying strategy to comprehensively trim all three core elements of GNNs: graph structures, node features, and model parameters. Meanwhile, aiming at refining the pruning operation, we introduce a regrowth process into our CGP framework, in order to re-establish the pruned but important connections. The proposed CGP is evaluated by using a node classification task across 6 GNN architectures, including shallow models (GCN and GAT), shallow-but-deep-propagation models (SGC and APPNP), and deep models (GCNII and ResGCN), on a total of 14 real-world graph datasets, including large-scale graph datasets from the challenging Open Graph Benchmark. Experiments reveal that our proposed strategy greatly improves both training and inference efficiency while matching or even exceeding the accuracy of existing methods.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 15 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
28
GPRGNN
actual #28 vs paper #269 241 places worse
0.9295 ±0.0131
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #269 241 places worse
paper 0.7838
paper 0.7838 Δ at pub 0.0622 Δ today 0.1457
34
MLP
actual #34 vs paper #269 235 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #269 235 places worse
paper 0.7838
41
CGP (APPNP)
0.9189
This paper
40
H2GCN
actual #40 vs paper #226 186 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #226 186 places worse
paper 0.8108
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.8108 Δ at pub 0.0382 Δ today 0.1081
46
APPNP
actual #46 vs paper #513 467 places worse
0.9131 ±0.0197
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #513 467 places worse
paper 0.5946
paper 0.5946 Δ at pub 0.3118 Δ today 0.3185
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
62
LINK
actual #62 vs paper #269 207 places worse
0.7838
actual #62 vs paper #269 207 places worse
paper 0.7838
61
FAGCN
actual #61 vs paper #352 291 places worse
0.8961 ±0.0152
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #352 291 places worse
paper 0.7297
paper 0.7297 Δ at pub 0.0946 Δ today 0.1664
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #472 215 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #472 215 places worse
paper 0.6216
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.6216 Δ at pub 0.1624 Δ today 0.1717
276
MixHop
actual #276 vs paper #440 164 places worse
0.7784 ±0.0773
best reported
actual #276 vs paper #440 164 places worse
paper 0.6486
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.6486 Δ at pub 0.1298 Δ today 0.1298
330
SGC
actual #330 vs paper #513 183 places worse
0.7440 ±0.0600
best reported
actual #330 vs paper #513 183 places worse
paper 0.5946
paper 0.5946 Δ at pub 0.1494
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #553 532 places worse
0.9181 ±0.0196
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #553 532 places worse
paper 0.4054
paper 0.4054 Δ at pub 0.5098 Δ today 0.5127
22
GPRGNN
actual #22 vs paper #118 96 places worse
0.8378
actual #22 vs paper #118 96 places worse
paper 0.8378

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8378 Δ at pub 0.0189 Δ today 0.0779
24
MLP
actual #24 vs paper #191 167 places worse
0.9136 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #191 167 places worse
paper 0.7838
paper 0.7838 Δ at pub 0.0648 Δ today 0.1298
33
CGP (GCN)
0.8919
This paper
38
FAGCN
actual #38 vs paper #166 128 places worse
0.8108
actual #38 vs paper #166 128 places worse
paper 0.8108

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8108 Δ at pub 0.0168 Δ today 0.0744
68
H2GCN
actual #68 vs paper #191 123 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #191 123 places worse
paper 0.7838
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.7838 Δ at pub 0.0432 Δ today 0.0785
138
SAGE
0.8269
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #380 210 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #380 210 places worse
paper 0.5946
paper 0.5946 Δ at pub 0.1974 Δ today 0.2136
183
MixHop
actual #183 vs paper #418 235 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0630
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #418 235 places worse
paper 0.5676
paper 0.5676 Δ at pub 0.2274
252
SGC
actual #252 vs paper #418 166 places worse
0.7350 ±0.0430
best reported
actual #252 vs paper #418 166 places worse
paper 0.5676
paper 0.5676 Δ at pub 0.1674
387
LINK
actual #387 vs paper #387
0.5916
actual #387 vs paper #387
paper 0.5916

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5916 Δ at pub 0.1269
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
41
APPNP
actual #41 vs paper #408 367 places worse
0.4046 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #408 367 places worse
paper 0.2730
paper 0.2730 Δ at pub 0.1246 Δ today 0.1316
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #227 185 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #227 185 places worse
paper 0.3513
paper 0.3513 Δ at pub 0.0505 Δ today 0.0513
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #168 116 places worse
0.3638
actual #52 vs paper #168 116 places worse
paper 0.3638

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3638 Δ at pub 0.0034 Δ today 0.0354
56
FAGCN
actual #56 vs paper #160 104 places worse
0.3970
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #160 104 places worse
paper 0.3651
paper 0.3651 Δ at pub 0.0319
63
CGP (GCN)
0.3921
This paper
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #199 128 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #199 128 places worse
paper 0.3566
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #342 207 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #342 207 places worse
paper 0.3030
paper 0.3030 Δ at pub 0.0660
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #405 243 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #405 243 places worse
paper 0.2757
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)
paper 0.2757 Δ at pub 0.0822 Δ today 0.0891
237
SGC
actual #237 vs paper #411 174 places worse
0.3490 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #237 vs paper #411 174 places worse
paper 0.2684
paper 0.2684 Δ at pub 0.0806
418
LINK
actual #418 vs paper #459 41 places worse
0.2625 ±0.0143
best reported
actual #418 vs paper #459 41 places worse
paper 0.2283
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere