ICLR 2022

Graph Neural Networks for Link Prediction with Subgraph Sketching

Benjamin P. Chamberlain [2] [3] Charm Therapeutics, Sergey Shirobokov [1] [2] ShareChat AI, Emanuele Rossi [2] Imperial College London, Fabrizio Frasca [2] Imperial College London, Thomas Markovich Twitter Inc., Nils Hammerla Coding.bio, Michael M. Bronstein [2] University of Oxford, Max Hansmire Twitter Inc.

Main figure for Graph Neural Networks for Link Prediction with Subgraph Sketching

Abstract

Many Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) perform poorly compared to simple heuristics on Link Prediction (LP) tasks. This is due to limitations in expressive power such as the inability to count triangles (the backbone of most LP heuristics) and because they can not distinguish automorphic nodes (those having identical structural roles). Both expressiveness issues can be alleviated by learning link (rather than node) representations and incorporating structural features such as triangle counts. Since explicit link representations are often prohibitively expensive, recent works resorted to subgraph-based methods, which have achieved state-of-the-art performance for LP, but suffer from poor efficiency due to high levels of redundancy between subgraphs. We analyze the components of subgraph GNN (SGNN) methods for link prediction. Based on our analysis, we propose a novel full-graph GNN called ELPH (Efficient Link Prediction with Hashing) that passes subgraph sketches as messages to approximate the key components of SGNNs without explicit subgraph construction. ELPH is provably more expressive than Message Passing GNNs (MPNNs). It outperforms existing SGNN models on many standard LP benchmarks while being orders of magnitude faster. However, it shares the common GNN limitation that it is only efficient when the dataset fits in GPU memory. Accordingly, we develop a highly scalable model, called BUDDY, which uses feature precomputation to circumvent this limitation without sacrificing predictive performance. Our experiments show that BUDDY also outperforms SGNNs on standard LP benchmarks while being highly scalable and faster than ELPH.

Proposed method: BUDDY

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelHits@20 ↑Paper
1
ELGNN
0.9777 ±0.0037
2
GIDN
0.9542
3
AGDN
0.9538 ±0.0094
13
ELPH
0.8319 ±0.0212
This paper
16
BUDDY
0.7851 ±0.0136
This paper
20
SAGE
actual #20 vs paper #37 17 places worse
0.6719 ±0.0118
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #37 17 places worse
paper 0.5390 ±0.0474
paper 0.5390 ±0.0474 Δ today 0.1329
24
GCN
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
0.6476 ±0.0145
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
paper 0.3707 ±0.0507
paper 0.3707 ±0.0507 Δ at pub 0.0753 Δ today 0.2769
26
Neo-GNN
0.6357 ±0.0352
This paper
38
GraphSAGE
0.5390 ±0.0474
43
SEAL
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
0.4974 ±0.0239
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
paper 0.3056 ±0.0386
47
RA
actual #47 vs paper #62 15 places worse
0.4401
best reported
actual #47 vs paper #62 15 places worse
paper 0.2760
paper 0.2760 Δ today 0.1641
50
AA
actual #50 vs paper #75 25 places worse
0.3975
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #75 25 places worse
paper 0.1861
51
CN
actual #51 vs paper #78 27 places worse
0.3869
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #78 27 places worse
paper 0.1773
84
DistMult
0.1101 ±0.0049
This paper
89
ComplEx
0.0868 ±0.0036
This paper
91
TransE
0.0665 ±0.0020
This paper
94
NBFnet
0.0400 ±0.0058
This paper
#ModelHits@100 ↑Paper
1
OGB Leader
0.6524 ±0.0150
2
PRB
0.6347 ±0.0175
3
LPFormer
0.6332 ±0.0063
9
RA
actual #9 vs paper #16 7 places worse
0.5324
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #16 7 places worse
paper 0.4933
paper 0.4933 Δ at pub 0.0391
14
SAGE
actual #14 vs paper #62 48 places worse
0.5013 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #62 48 places worse
paper 0.1655 ±0.0240
paper 0.1655 ±0.0240 Δ today 0.3358
15
BUDDY
0.4985 ±0.0020
This paper
18
Neo-GNN
0.4913 ±0.0060
This paper
19
SEAL
0.4880 ±0.0316
This paper
23
MLP
0.4600
39
AA
0.3245
This paper
45
GCN
actual #45 vs paper #59 14 places worse
0.3084 ±0.0178
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #59 14 places worse
paper 0.1867 ±0.0132
paper 0.1867 ±0.0132 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.1217
48
DistMult
0.2861 ±0.0147
This paper
49
CN
0.2765
This paper
53
ComplEx
0.2742 ±0.0049
This paper
56
TransE
0.2269 ±0.0049
This paper
63
GraphSAGE
0.1655 ±0.0240
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
8
SEAL
0.8767 ±0.0032
This paper
9
BUDDY
0.8756 ±0.0011
This paper
11
Neo-GNN
0.8726 ±0.0084
This paper
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #21 9 places worse
0.8705 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #21 9 places worse
paper 0.8474 ±0.0021
paper 0.8474 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0231
30
SAGE
actual #30 vs paper #32 2 places worse
0.8292 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #32 2 places worse
paper 0.8260 ±0.0036

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8260 ±0.0036 Δ today 0.0032
32
GraphSAGE
0.8264 ±0.0001
47
TransE
0.7644 ±0.0018
This paper
51
RA
actual #51 vs paper #61 10 places worse
0.7604
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #61 10 places worse
paper 0.5198
52
AA
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
0.7596
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
paper 0.5189
54
CN
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
0.7430
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
paper 0.5147
55
ComplEx
0.7283 ±0.0038
This paper
57
DistMult
0.6695 ±0.0040
This paper
71
MLP
0.3917 ±0.0044
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