ICLR 2022

FoSR: First-order Spectral Rewiring for addressing Oversquashing in GNNs

Kedar Karhadkar, P. Banerjee, Guido Montúfar

Main figure for FoSR: First-order Spectral Rewiring for addressing Oversquashing in GNNs

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) are able to leverage the structure of graph data by passing messages along the edges of the graph. While this allows GNNs to learn features depending on the graph structure, for certain graph topologies it leads to inefficient information propagation and a problem known as oversquashing. This has recently been linked with the curvature and spectral gap of the graph. On the other hand, adding edges to the message-passing graph can lead to increasingly similar node representations and a problem known as oversmoothing. We propose a computationally efficient algorithm that prevents oversquashing by systematically adding edges to the graph based on spectral expansion. We combine this with a relational architecture, which lets the GNN preserve the original graph structure and provably prevents oversmoothing. We find experimentally that our algorithm outperforms existing graph rewiring methods in several graph classification tasks.

Proposed method: FoSR

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
235
FoSR
0.7511 ±0.0082
This paper
398
Last layer FA
0.7230 ±0.0067
This paper
403
SDRF
actual #403 vs paper #443 40 places worse
0.7220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #403 vs paper #443 40 places worse
paper 0.7092 ±0.0079

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7092 ±0.0079 Δ today 0.0128
426
Every layer FA
0.7167 ±0.0088
This paper
432
DIGL
0.7131 ±0.0076
This paper
443
None
0.7098 ±0.0074
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
213
FoSR
0.7681 ±0.0045
This paper
220
SDRF
actual #220 vs paper #220
0.7648 ±0.0039
actual #220 vs paper #220
paper 0.7648 ±0.0039
paper 0.7648 ±0.0039 Δ at pub 0.1988
240
None
0.7554 ±0.0032
This paper
243
Last layer FA
0.7543 ±0.0049
This paper
244
Every layer FA
0.7543 ±0.0047
This paper
338
DIGL
actual #338 vs paper #342 4 places worse
0.5751 ±0.0590
best reported
actual #338 vs paper #342 4 places worse
paper 0.5471 ±0.0042

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5471 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0280
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
134
Every layer FA
0.5495 ±0.0133
This paper
164
Last layer FA
0.4818 ±0.0140
This paper
170
FoSR
0.4555 ±0.0126
This paper
189
SDRF
0.3958 ±0.0133
This paper
191
None
0.3902 ±0.0117
This paper
201
DIGL
0.3760 ±0.0120
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ID-GNN+BEC
0.8150 ±0.0240
2
GIN+BEC
0.8080 ±0.0330
3
GCN+BEC
0.7990 ±0.0340
4
GCN
0.7980 ±0.0230
112
FoSR
0.7181 ±0.0088
This paper
122
Every layer FA
0.7148 ±0.0088
This paper
132
Last layer FA
0.7091 ±0.0079
This paper
135
SDRF
0.7021 ±0.0081
This paper
136
None
0.7018 ±0.0099
This paper
147
DIGL
0.6439 ±0.0091
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 value improved over the best known when published