Not All Neighbors Are Worth Attending to: Graph Selective Attention Networks for Semi-supervised Learning

Tiantian He, Haicang Zhou, Y. Ong, Gao Cong

Main figure for Not All Neighbors Are Worth Attending to: Graph Selective Attention Networks for Semi-supervised Learning

Abstract

Graph attention networks (GATs) are powerful tools for analyzing graph data from various real-world scenarios. To learn representations for downstream tasks, GATs generally attend to all neighbors of the central node when aggregating the features. In this paper, we show that a large portion of the neighbors are irrelevant to the central nodes in many real-world graphs, and can be excluded from neighbor aggregation. Taking the cue, we present Selective Attention (SA) and a series of novel attention mechanisms for graph neural networks (GNNs). SA leverages diverse forms of learnable node-node dissimilarity to acquire the scope of attention for each node, from which irrelevant neighbors are excluded. We further propose Graph selective attention networks (SATs) to learn representations from the highly correlated node features identified and investigated by different SA mechanisms. Lastly, theoretical analysis on the expressive power of the proposed SATs and a comprehensive empirical study of the SATs on challenging real-world datasets against state-of-the-art GNNs are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of SATs.

Proposed method: SAT-S

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

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #557 536 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #557 536 places worse
paper 0.8179 ±0.0021
paper 0.8179 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0538 Δ today 0.0825
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #324 280 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #324 280 places worse
paper 0.8372 ±0.0078
paper 0.8372 ±0.0078 Δ at pub 0.0518 Δ today 0.0525
55
JKNet
actual #55 vs paper #704 649 places worse
0.8870
best reported
actual #55 vs paper #704 649 places worse
paper 0.7870 ±0.0045
paper 0.7870 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.1000
108
APPNP
actual #108 vs paper #465 357 places worse
0.8787
best reported
actual #108 vs paper #465 357 places worse
paper 0.8250 ±0.0042
best at pub: Orthogonal Graph Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.8250 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0537 Δ today 0.0537
141
GraphSAGE
actual #141 vs paper #582 441 places worse
0.8708 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #582 441 places worse
paper 0.8136 ±0.0044
165
GIN
actual #165 vs paper #586 421 places worse
0.8660 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #165 vs paper #586 421 places worse
paper 0.8127 ±0.0057
paper 0.8127 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0053 Δ today 0.0533
225
SAT-C
0.8502 ±0.0035
This paper
242
SAT-S
0.8466 ±0.0023
This paper
267
CaT
0.8438 ±0.0025
This paper
303
GATv2
0.8406 ±0.0083
This paper
384
ARMA
actual #384 vs paper #633 249 places worse
0.8340
best reported
actual #384 vs paper #633 249 places worse
paper 0.8047 ±0.0071
383
NeuralSparse
actual #383 vs paper #389 6 places worse
0.8340 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #383 vs paper #389 6 places worse
paper 0.8333 ±0.0018

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8333 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0007
508
MoNet
actual #508 vs paper #612 104 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #508 vs paper #612 104 places worse
paper 0.8093 ±0.0041
best at pub: GRAND: Graph Neural Diffusion (ICML 2021)
paper 0.8093 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0127
679
HardGAT
0.7944 ±0.0052
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
17
APPNP
actual #17 vs paper #309 292 places worse
0.9355 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #309 292 places worse
paper 0.8276 ±0.0037
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #474 456 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #474 456 places worse
paper 0.7980 ±0.0031
24
JKNet
actual #24 vs paper #480 456 places worse
0.9160
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #480 456 places worse
paper 0.7973 ±0.0004
paper 0.7973 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.1187
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
157
GIN
actual #157 vs paper #416 259 places worse
0.8810
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #416 259 places worse
paper 0.8037 ±0.0069
paper 0.8037 ±0.0069 Δ at pub 0.0039 Δ today 0.0773
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
257
NeuralSparse
actual #257 vs paper #370 113 places worse
0.8500
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #370 113 places worse
paper 0.8107 ±0.0021
paper 0.8107 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0393
296
SAT-S
0.8322 ±0.0015
This paper
297
SAT-C
0.8316 ±0.0010
This paper
315
CaT
0.8260 ±0.0027
This paper
332
GATv2
0.8194 ±0.0029
This paper
375
HardGAT
0.8100 ±0.0029
This paper
446
MoNet
actual #446 vs paper #446
0.8006 ±0.0055
actual #446 vs paper #446
paper 0.8006 ±0.0055

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8006 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0028
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