Cell Attention Networks

Lorenzo Giusti, C. Battiloro, Lucia Testa, P. Lorenzo, S. Sardellitti, S. Barbarossa

Main figure for Cell Attention Networks

Abstract

Since their introduction, graph attention networks achieved outstanding results in graph representation learning tasks. However, these networks consider only pairwise relationships among nodes and then they are not able to fully exploit higher-order interactions present in many real world data-sets. In this paper, we introduce Cell Attention Networks (CANs), a neural architecture operating on data defined over the vertices of a graph, representing the graph as the 1-skeleton of a cell complex introduced to capture higher order interactions. In particular, we exploit the lower and upper neighborhoods, as encoded in the cell complex, to design two independent masked self-attention mechanisms, thus generalizing the conventional graph attention strategy. The approach used in CANs is hierarchical and it incorporates the following steps: i) a lifting algorithm that learns edge features from node features; ii) a cell attention mechanism to find the optimal combination of edge features over both lower and upper neighbors; iii) a hierarchical edge pooling mechanism to extract a compact meaningful set of features. The experimental results show that CAN is a low complexity strategy that compares favorably with state of the art results on graph-based learning tasks.

Proposed method: CAN

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
26
CIN
actual #26 vs paper #48 22 places worse
0.9440 ±0.0370
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #48 22 places worse
paper 0.9270 ±0.0610

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9270 ±0.0610 Δ today 0.0170
29
CAN
0.9410 ±0.0480
This paper
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8940 ±0.0560

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.0390
64
GSN
0.9220 ±0.0750
This paper
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
139
PPGNs
0.9060 ±0.0870
This paper
161
WLK
0.9040 ±0.0570
This paper
240
NGN
0.8940 ±0.0160
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
425
DGCNN
actual #425 vs paper #425
0.8583 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #425 vs paper #425
paper 0.8580 ±0.0180

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8580 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.0003
467
PK
actual #467 vs paper #695 228 places worse
0.8450 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #467 vs paper #695 228 places worse
paper 0.7600 ±0.0270
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.7600 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0850
492
IGN
0.8390 ±0.0130
This paper
584
GK (k=3)
0.8140 ±0.0170
This paper
643
RWK
0.7920 ±0.0210
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0170
paper 0.8270 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.1664
3
GCN
0.9727
11
WLK
0.8600 ±0.0180
This paper
19
CIN
actual #19 vs paper #47 28 places worse
0.8530 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #47 28 places worse
paper 0.8360 ±0.0140

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8360 ±0.0140 Δ today 0.0170
29
CAN
0.8450 ±0.0160
This paper
28
PK
actual #28 vs paper #103 75 places worse
0.8450 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #103 75 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0050
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8250 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0200
50
GSN
0.8350 ±0.0200
This paper
64
PPGNs
0.8320 ±0.0110
This paper
82
SIN
actual #82 vs paper #91 9 places worse
0.8280 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #91 9 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0210

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8270 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0010
110
NGN
0.8240 ±0.0130
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
373
DGCNN
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
0.7650 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #373 vs paper #424 51 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7440 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0210
428
IGN
actual #428 vs paper #430 2 places worse
0.7433 ±0.0271
best reported
actual #428 vs paper #430 2 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0270

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7430 ±0.0270 Δ today 0.0003
540
DCNN
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
0.6261
best reported
actual #540 vs paper #566 26 places worse
paper 0.5660 ±0.0100
541
GK (k=3)
0.6250 ±0.0030
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)