NeurIPS 2022

Geodesic Graph Neural Network for Efficient Graph Representation Learning

Lecheng Kong, Yixin Chen, Muhan Zhang

Main figure for Geodesic Graph Neural Network for Efficient Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have recently been applied to graph learning tasks and achieved state-of-the-art (SOTA) results. However, many competitive methods run GNNs multiple times with subgraph extraction and customized labeling to capture information that is hard for normal GNNs to learn. Such operations are time-consuming and do not scale to large graphs. In this paper, we propose an efficient GNN framework called Geodesic GNN (GDGNN) that requires only one GNN run and injects conditional relationships between nodes into the model without labeling. This strategy effectively reduces the runtime of subgraph methods. Specifically, we view the shortest paths between two nodes as the spatial graph context of the neighborhood around them. The GNN embeddings of nodes on the shortest paths are used to generate geodesic representations. Conditioned on the geodesic representations, GDGNN can generate node, link, and graph representations that carry much richer structural information than plain GNNs. We theoretically prove that GDGNN is more powerful than plain GNNs. We present experimental results to show that GDGNN achieves highly competitive performance with SOTA GNN models on various graph learning tasks while taking significantly less time.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 5 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
actual #39 vs paper #725 686 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #725 686 places worse
paper 0.7400 ±0.0880
paper 0.7400 ±0.0880 Δ at pub 0.1930
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #736 673 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #736 673 places worse
paper 0.7340 ±0.1080
paper 0.7340 ±0.1080 Δ at pub 0.1570 Δ today 0.1880
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
252
GDGIN
0.8940 ±0.0710
This paper
315
GDGCN
0.8840 ±0.0660
This paper
338
Nested-GIN
0.8790 ±0.0820
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
529
Nested-GCN
0.8290 ±0.1110
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #436 404 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #436 404 places worse
paper 0.7120 ±0.0520

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7120 ±0.0520 Δ at pub 0.0490 Δ today 0.0760
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #420 272 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #420 272 places worse
paper 0.7170 ±0.0470

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7170 ±0.0470 Δ at pub 0.0410 Δ today 0.0430
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
321
Nested-GIN
0.7390 ±0.0510
This paper
330
GDGCN
0.7370 ±0.0340
This paper
339
GDGIN
0.7360 ±0.0250
This paper
353
Nested-GCN
0.7330 ±0.0400
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GC-GNN (GCN)
0.9210 ±0.0810
2
SUGAR
0.8403 ±0.0133
3
Ortho-g-U-Nets
0.8387
15
SAGE
0.8088 ±0.0233
43
GCN
actual #43 vs paper #161 118 places worse
0.7912 ±0.0307
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #161 118 places worse
paper 0.7160 ±0.0280
best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)
paper 0.7160 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.0752
74
GIN
actual #74 vs paper #161 87 places worse
0.7805 ±0.0189
best reported
actual #74 vs paper #161 87 places worse
paper 0.7160 ±0.0300
paper 0.7160 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0645
80
Nested-GIN
0.7780 ±0.0390
This paper
81
GDGIN
0.7780 ±0.0360
This paper
87
GDGCN
0.7760 ±0.0400
This paper
112
Nested-GCN
0.7630 ±0.0380
This paper

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
19
DGSN
0.8039 ±0.0090
This paper
25
PF-GNN
0.8015 ±0.0068
This paper
38
GIN-AK+
actual #38 vs paper #90 52 places worse
0.7961 ±0.0119
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #90 52 places worse
paper 0.7822 ±0.0075

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7822 ±0.0075 Δ today 0.0139
60
GDGIN
0.7907 ±0.0120
This paper
87
Nested-GIN
0.7834 ±0.0186
This paper
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #221 112 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #221 112 places worse
paper 0.7558 ±0.0140

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7558 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0222
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
#ModelHits@50 ↑Paper
1
PROXI
0.7650 ±0.0027
2
OGB Leader
0.7129 ±0.0018
3
GIDN
0.7096 ±0.0055
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #91 82 places worse
0.6621 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #91 82 places worse
paper 0.4475 ±0.0145
best at pub: OGB (NeurIPS 2020)
paper 0.4475 ±0.0145 Δ at pub 0.0239 Δ today 0.2146
20
SEAL
actual #20 vs paper #42 22 places worse
0.6474 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #42 22 places worse
paper 0.5437 ±0.0049
28
SAGE
0.5944 ±0.0137
38
GDGNN-Vert
0.5474 ±0.0048
This paper
42
GDGNN-Hor
0.5452 ±0.0072
This paper
52
DeeperGCN
0.5273 ±0.0047
This paper
60
DeepWalk
actual #60 vs paper #60
0.5040 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #60 vs paper #60
paper 0.5037 ±0.0034

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5037 ±0.0034 Δ at pub 0.0003
94
MLP
0.4438 ±0.0347
#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
0.5013 ±0.0055
19
SEAL
0.4880 ±0.0316
This paper
23
MLP
0.4600
25
GDGNN-Vert
0.4592 ±0.0214
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
46
DeepWalk
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.2890 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.2888 ±0.0163

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2888 ±0.0163 Δ at pub 0.0002
47
GDGNN-Hor
0.2879 ±0.0380
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