LoG 2022

Expander Graph Propagation

Andreea Deac Mila, Universit\'e de Montr\'eal Marc Lackenby Petar Veli kovi\'c

Main figure for Expander Graph Propagation

Abstract

Deploying graph neural networks (GNNs) on whole-graph classification or regression tasks is known to be challenging: it often requires computing node features that are mindful of both local interactions in their neighbourhood and the global context of the graph structure. GNN architectures that navigate this space need to avoid pathological behaviours, such as bottlenecks and oversquashing, while ideally having linear time and space complexity requirements. In this work, we propose an elegant approach based on propagating information over expander graphs. We leverage an efficient method for constructing expander graphs of a given size, and use this insight to propose the EGP model. We show that EGP is able to address all of the above concerns, while requiring minimal effort to set up, and provide evidence of its empirical utility on relevant graph classification datasets and baselines in the Open Graph Benchmark. Importantly, using expander graphs as a template for message passing necessarily gives rise to negative curvature. While this appears to be counterintuitive in light of recent related work on oversquashing, we theoretically demonstrate that negatively curved edges are likely to be required to obtain scalable message passing without bottlenecks. To the best of our knowledge, this is a previously unstudied result in the context of graph representation learning, and we believe our analysis paves the way to a novel class of scalable methods to counter oversquashing in GNNs.

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

#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
48
GIN + EGP
0.7934 ±0.0035
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
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Large
0.3150 ±0.0010
2
Graphormer
0.3140
3
Graphormer-FLAG
0.3139 ±0.0032
31
GIN
actual #31 vs paper #90 59 places worse
0.2902 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #90 59 places worse
paper 0.2266 ±0.0028
paper 0.2266 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0636
56
GCN
0.2690 ±0.0020
86
GIN + EGP
0.2329 ±0.0019
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
A-NLSF
0.8149 ±0.0067
2
differential encoding
0.8096 ±0.0029
3
MPNN + VN + NoPE
0.8055 ±0.0038
16
GatedGCN
0.7531 ±0.0083
33
GIN
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
0.7037 ±0.0107
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
paper 0.6892 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6892 ±0.0100 Δ today 0.0145
36
GIN + EGP
0.7027 ±0.0159
This paper
38
GCN
0.6857 ±0.0061
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)