Higher-order Clustering and Pooling for Graph Neural Networks

Alexandre Duval, Fragkiskos D. Malliaros

Main figure for Higher-order Clustering and Pooling for Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks achieve state-of-the-art performance on a plethora of graph classification tasks, especially due to pooling operators, which aggregate learned node embeddings hierarchically into a final graph representation. However, they are not only questioned by recent work showing on par performance with random pooling, but also ignore completely higher-order connectivity patterns. To tackle this issue, we propose HoscPool, a clustering-based graph pooling operator that captures higher-order information hierarchically, leading to richer graph representations. In fact, we learn a probabilistic cluster assignment matrix end-to-end by minimising relaxed formulations of motif spectral clustering in our objective function, and we then extend it to a pooling operator. We evaluate HoscPool on graph classification tasks and its clustering component on graphs with ground-truth community structure, achieving best performance. Lastly, we provide a deep empirical analysis of pooling operators' inner functioning. The code is available here.

Proposed method: HoscPool

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
141
MINCUTPOOL
actual #141 vs paper #652 511 places worse
0.9060 ±0.0460
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #652 511 places worse
paper 0.7860 ±0.0180
paper 0.7860 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0057 Δ today 0.1200
202
GMT
actual #202 vs paper #638 436 places worse
0.8990 ±0.0420
best reported
actual #202 vs paper #638 436 places worse
paper 0.7940 ±0.0220
paper 0.7940 ±0.0220 Δ at pub 0.0404 Δ today 0.1050
239
DiffPool
actual #239 vs paper #665 426 places worse
0.8940 ±0.0460
best reported
actual #239 vs paper #665 426 places worse
paper 0.7790 ±0.0230
paper 0.7790 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0728 Δ today 0.1150
367
ASAP
actual #367 vs paper #684 317 places worse
0.8740 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #367 vs paper #684 317 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0240
paper 0.7680 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0337 Δ today 0.1060
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
535
Random
actual #535 vs paper #640 105 places worse
0.8270 ±0.0680
best reported
actual #535 vs paper #640 105 places worse
paper 0.7920 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7920 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0350
561
HoscPool
0.8230 ±0.0130
This paper
576
HP-2
0.8170 ±0.0210
This paper
623
SAGPool
actual #623 vs paper #721 98 places worse
0.7986 ±0.0236
best reported
actual #623 vs paper #721 98 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0270
paper 0.7440 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0546
625
HP-1
0.7980 ±0.0160
This paper
659
No pool
0.7810 ±0.0130
This paper
710
EigPool
0.7520 ±0.0270
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
5
DiffPool
actual #5 vs paper #370 365 places worse
0.9210 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #370 365 places worse
paper 0.7670 ±0.0210
paper 0.7670 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0103 Δ today 0.1540
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
212
HP-2
0.8030 ±0.0200
This paper
229
HoscPool
0.7990 ±0.0170
This paper
226
GMT
actual #226 vs paper #416 190 places worse
0.7990 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #226 vs paper #416 190 places worse
paper 0.7490 ±0.0430

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7490 ±0.0430 Δ at pub 0.0145 Δ today 0.0500
259
SAGPool
actual #259 vs paper #437 178 places worse
0.7910 ±0.0300
best reported
actual #259 vs paper #437 178 places worse
paper 0.7410 ±0.0390

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7410 ±0.0390 Δ at pub 0.0378 Δ today 0.0500
309
ASAP
actual #309 vs paper #430 121 places worse
0.7821 ±0.0175
best reported
actual #309 vs paper #430 121 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0160
paper 0.7430 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0391
346
HP-1
0.7730 ±0.0160
This paper
354
No pool
0.7710 ±0.0190
This paper
358
Random
0.7700 ±0.0170
This paper
368
MINCUTPOOL
actual #368 vs paper #368
0.7680 ±0.0160
actual #368 vs paper #368
paper 0.7680 ±0.0160

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7680 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0070
412
EigPool
0.7500 ±0.0220
This paper
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere