NeurIPS 2022

Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling

Zaixin Zhang, Qi Liu, Qingyong Hu, Cheekong Lee

Main figure for Hierarchical Graph Transformer with Adaptive Node Sampling

Abstract

The Transformer architecture has achieved remarkable success in a number of domains including natural language processing and computer vision. However, when it comes to graph-structured data, transformers have not achieved competitive performance, especially on large graphs. In this paper, we identify the main deficiencies of current graph transformers: (1) Existing node sampling strategies in Graph Transformers are agnostic to the graph characteristics and the training process. (2) Most sampling strategies only focus on local neighbors and neglect the long-range dependencies in the graph. We conduct experimental investigations on synthetic datasets to show that existing sampling strategies are sub-optimal. To tackle the aforementioned problems, we formulate the optimization strategies of node sampling in Graph Transformer as an adversary bandit problem, where the rewards are related to the attention weights and can vary in the training procedure. Meanwhile, we propose a hierarchical attention scheme with graph coarsening to capture the long-range interactions while reducing computational complexity. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments on real-world datasets to demonstrate the superiority of our method over existing graph transformers and popular GNNs. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/zaixizhang/ANS-GT.

Proposed method: ANS-GT

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #256 250 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #256 250 places worse
paper 0.7557 ±0.0028
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #206 123 places worse
0.8287
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #206 123 places worse
paper 0.7861 ±0.0031
96
ANS-GT
0.8215 ±0.0030
This paper
154
GPRGNN
0.7976 ±0.0059
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIANT-XRT
0.7612 ±0.0016
2
GEGCN
0.7576 ±0.0064
3
AGDN
0.7522 ±0.0007
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #54 31 places worse
0.7300 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #54 31 places worse
paper 0.7172 ±0.0045
24
ANS-GT
0.7284 ±0.0034
This paper
25
GraphSAGE
actual #25 vs paper #62 37 places worse
0.7277 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #62 37 places worse
paper 0.7146 ±0.0026
26
SAGE
0.7267 ±0.0031
55
GPRGNN
actual #55 vs paper #76 21 places worse
0.7168 ±0.0044
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #76 21 places worse
paper 0.7090 ±0.0023
paper 0.7090 ±0.0023 Δ today 0.0078
107
MLP
0.5765 ±0.0012

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
41
APPNP
actual #41 vs paper #71 30 places worse
0.4046 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #71 30 places worse
paper 0.3880 ±0.0025
paper 0.3880 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0096 Δ today 0.0166
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
47
ANS-GT
0.4010 ±0.0112
This paper
45
GT
actual #45 vs paper #93 48 places worse
0.4010
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #93 48 places worse
paper 0.3794 ±0.0026
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #62 10 places worse
0.3927 ±0.0021
actual #52 vs paper #62 10 places worse
paper 0.3927 ±0.0021
paper 0.3927 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0289
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #76 8 places worse
0.3855 ±0.0046
actual #68 vs paper #76 8 places worse
paper 0.3855 ±0.0046
paper 0.3855 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0331
83
SAN
0.3824 ±0.0053
This paper
99
Graphormer
actual #99 vs paper #99
0.3785 ±0.0029
actual #99 vs paper #99
paper 0.3785 ±0.0029
paper 0.3785 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0131
114
Gophormer
0.3750 ±0.0042
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #315 180 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #315 180 places worse
paper 0.3139 ±0.0023
paper 0.3139 ±0.0023 Δ at pub 0.0551
176
H_2GCN
actual #176 vs paper #176
0.3622 ±0.0033
actual #176 vs paper #176
paper 0.3622 ±0.0033

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3622 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0032
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #182
0.3605 ±0.0035
actual #182 vs paper #182
paper 0.3605 ±0.0035

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3605 ±0.0035 Δ at pub 0.0045
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
281
JKNet
actual #281 vs paper #281
0.3342 ±0.0028
actual #281 vs paper #281
paper 0.3342 ±0.0028
paper 0.3342 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0303
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #101 98 places worse
0.8560
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #101 98 places worse
paper 0.6390 ±0.0046
32
JKNet
actual #32 vs paper #109 77 places worse
0.6292 ±0.0049
actual #32 vs paper #109 77 places worse
paper 0.6292 ±0.0049
paper 0.6292 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.1847 Δ today 0.1127
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #123 71 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #123 71 places worse
paper 0.6096 ±0.0075
paper 0.6096 ±0.0075 Δ at pub 0.0664 Δ today 0.0937
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #96 24 places worse
0.6748 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #96 24 places worse
paper 0.6456 ±0.0059
paper 0.6456 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0191 Δ today 0.0292
79
APPNP
actual #79 vs paper #183 104 places worse
0.6670 ±0.0270
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #183 104 places worse
paper 0.5191 ±0.0056
paper 0.5191 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.1479
84
ANS-GT
0.6542 ±0.0071
This paper
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
115
GraphSAGE
actual #115 vs paper #115
0.6215 ±0.0042
actual #115 vs paper #115
paper 0.6215 ±0.0042
paper 0.6215 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0342
121
H_2GCN
actual #121 vs paper #121
0.6120 ±0.0095
actual #121 vs paper #121
paper 0.6120 ±0.0095

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6120 ±0.0095 Δ at pub 0.0180
148
GT
0.5786 ±0.0120
This paper
154
Gophormer
0.5740 ±0.0014
This paper
162
SAN
0.5562 ±0.0043
This paper
169
MLP
0.5429
265
Graphormer
0.3681 ±0.0196
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere