NeurIPS 2022

NOSMOG: Learning Noise-robust and Structure-aware MLPs on Graphs

Yijun Tian, Chuxu Zhang, Zhichun Guo, Xiangliang Zhang, N. Chawla

Main figure for NOSMOG: Learning Noise-robust and Structure-aware MLPs on Graphs

Abstract

While Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated their efficacy in dealing with non-Euclidean structural data, they are difficult to be deployed in real applications due to the scalability constraint imposed by multi-hop data dependency. Existing methods attempt to address this scalability issue by training multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) exclusively on node content features using labels derived from trained GNNs. Even though the performance of MLPs can be significantly improved, two issues prevent MLPs from outperforming GNNs and being used in practice: the ignorance of graph structural information and the sensitivity to node feature noises. In this paper, we propose to learn ise-robust tructure-aware LPs n raphs (NOSMOG) to overcome the challenges. Specifically, we first complement node content with position features to help MLPs capture graph structural information. We then design a novel representational similarity distillation strategy to inject structural node similarities into MLPs. Finally, we introduce the adversarial feature augmentation to ensure stable learning against feature noises and further improve performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that NOSMOG outperforms GNNs and the state-of-the-art method in both transductive and inductive settings across seven datasets, while maintaining a competitive inference efficiency. Codes are available at.

Proposed method: NOSMOG

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 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
348
GLNN
actual #348 vs paper #647 299 places worse
0.8360 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #348 vs paper #647 299 places worse
paper 0.8026 ±0.0166
paper 0.8026 ±0.0166 Δ at pub 0.0028 Δ today 0.0334
424
NOSMOG
0.8304 ±0.0126
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
229
GLNN
actual #229 vs paper #536 307 places worse
0.7400 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #229 vs paper #536 307 places worse
paper 0.7122 ±0.0150
paper 0.7122 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.0055 Δ today 0.0278
246
NOSMOG
0.7378 ±0.0154
This paper
259
SAGE
actual #259 vs paper #592 333 places worse
0.7361 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #259 vs paper #592 333 places worse
paper 0.7049 ±0.0153
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere