NeurIPS 2022

A Comprehensive Study on Large-Scale Graph Training: Benchmarking and Rethinking

Keyu Duan, Zirui Liu, Peihao Wang, Wenqing Zheng, Kaixiong Zhou, Tianlong Chen, Xia Hu, Zhangyang Wang

Main figure for A Comprehensive Study on Large-Scale Graph Training: Benchmarking and Rethinking

Abstract

Large-scale graph training is a notoriously challenging problem for graph neural networks (GNNs). Due to the nature of evolving graph structures into the training process, vanilla GNNs usually fail to scale up, limited by the GPU memory space. Up to now, though numerous scalable GNN architectures have been proposed, we still lack a comprehensive survey and fair benchmark of this reservoir to find the rationale for designing scalable GNNs. To this end, we first systematically formulate the representative methods of large-scale graph training into several branches and further establish a fair and consistent benchmark for them by a greedy hyperparameter searching. In addition, regarding efficiency, we theoretically evaluate the time and space complexity of various branches and empirically compare them w.r.t GPU memory usage, throughput, and convergence. Furthermore, We analyze the pros and cons for various branches of scalable GNNs and then present a new ensembling training manner, named EnGCN, to address the existing issues. Remarkably, our proposed method has achieved new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on large-scale datasets. Our code is available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 11 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
This paper
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
This paper
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #51 47 places worse
0.9700
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #51 47 places worse
paper 0.9562 ±0.0005
paper 0.9562 ±0.0005 Δ at pub 0.0098 Δ today 0.0138
6
SAGN
actual #6 vs paper #21 15 places worse
0.9690
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #21 15 places worse
paper 0.9648 ±0.0003
paper 0.9648 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0042
8
SIGN
actual #8 vs paper #41 33 places worse
0.9680
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #41 33 places worse
paper 0.9595 ±0.0002
paper 0.9595 ±0.0002 Δ at pub 0.0085 Δ today 0.0085
9
GAMLP
0.9673 ±0.0003
This paper
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #20 6 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #20 6 places worse
paper 0.9650 ±0.0003
paper 0.9650 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0010
37
AdaGCN
0.9605
This paper
48
ClusterGCN
actual #48 vs paper #51 3 places worse
0.9570
best reported
actual #48 vs paper #51 3 places worse
paper 0.9568 ±0.0003

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9568 ±0.0003 Δ at pub 0.0002
57
C&S
0.9533 ±0.0008
This paper
58
GCN
0.9530 ±0.0010
73
SGC
actual #73 vs paper #97 24 places worse
0.9490
best reported
actual #73 vs paper #97 24 places worse
paper 0.9351 ±0.0004
paper 0.9351 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0139 Δ today 0.0139
91
FastGCN
actual #91 vs paper #121 30 places worse
0.9370
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #121 30 places worse
paper 0.7950 ±0.0122
104
LADIES
actual #104 vs paper #118 14 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #118 14 places worse
paper 0.8696 ±0.0037
paper 0.8696 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0624

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
11
EnGCN
0.8799 ±0.0004
This paper
14
SAGN
actual #14 vs paper #117 103 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #117 103 places worse
paper 0.8121 ±0.0007
paper 0.8121 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0615
22
GIANT-XRT+SAGN+MCR+C&S
0.8673 ±0.0008
This paper
41
C&S
actual #41 vs paper #41
0.8511 ±0.0007
actual #41 vs paper #41
paper 0.8511 ±0.0007
paper 0.8511 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0800
64
GraphSAINT
actual #64 vs paper #259 195 places worse
0.8383 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #259 195 places worse
paper 0.7536 ±0.0034
paper 0.7536 ±0.0034 Δ at pub 0.0847
65
GAMLP
actual #65 vs paper #65
0.8376 ±0.0019
actual #65 vs paper #65
paper 0.8376 ±0.0019

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8376 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0022
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #231 154 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #231 154 places worse
paper 0.7685 ±0.0056
paper 0.7685 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0625
83
GraphSAGE
actual #83 vs paper #134 51 places worse
0.8061 ±0.0016
actual #83 vs paper #134 51 places worse
paper 0.8061 ±0.0016
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #346 252 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #346 252 places worse
paper 0.6748 ±0.0011
paper 0.6748 ±0.0011 Δ at pub 0.1472
190
ClusterGCN
actual #190 vs paper #206 16 places worse
0.7897 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #206 16 places worse
paper 0.7862 ±0.0061

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7862 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0035 Δ today 0.0035
238
AdaGCN
0.7641
This paper
262
LADIES
0.7531 ±0.0056
This paper
308
FastGCN
0.7346 ±0.0020
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result