LoG 2022

You Can Have Better Graph Neural Networks by Not Training Weights at All: Finding Untrained GNNs Tickets

Tianjin Huang, Tianlong Chen, Meng Fang, V. Menkovski, Jiaxu Zhao, Lu Yin, Yulong Pei, D. Mocanu, Zhangyang Wang, Mykola Pechenizkiy, Shiwei Liu

Main figure for You Can Have Better Graph Neural Networks by Not Training Weights at All: Finding Untrained GNNs Tickets

Abstract

Recent works have impressively demonstrated that there exists a subnetwork in randomly initialized convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that can match the performance of the fully trained dense networks at initialization, without any optimization of the weights of the network (i.e., untrained networks). However, the presence of such untrained subnetworks in graph neural networks (GNNs) still remains mysterious. In this paper we carry out the first-of-its-kind exploration of discovering matching untrained GNNs. With sparsity as the core tool, we can find untrained sparse subnetworks at the initialization, that can match the performance of fully trained dense GNNs. Besides this already encouraging finding of comparable performance, we show that the found untrained subnetworks can substantially mitigate the GNN over-smoothing problem, hence becoming a powerful tool to enable deeper GNNs without bells and whistles. We also observe that such sparse untrained subnetworks have appealing performance in out-of-distribution detection and robustness of input perturbations. We evaluate our method across widely-used GNN architectures on various popular datasets including the Open Graph Benchmark (OGB). The code is available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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
0.9004
724
MLP
0.7768
730
UGTs-GCN
0.7750 ±0.0080
This paper
745
UGTs-GAT
0.7670 ±0.0110
This paper
813
NodeNorm
0.7090
This paper
924
Residual
0.2070
This paper
925
Trained Dense GAT
0.2060
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
809
UGTs-GAT
0.6270 ±0.0070
This paper
822
UGTs-GCN
0.6110 ±0.0090
This paper
901
Trained Dense GAT
0.2000
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
692
UGTs-GAT
0.7790 ±0.0050
This paper
708
UGTs-GCN
0.7760 ±0.0090
This paper
887
Trained Dense GAT
0.1800
This paper

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
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
131
DENSE
0.7740
This paper
135
UGTs
0.7730
This paper

ogbg-molpcba

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ROC-AUC; the dataset default is AP. Values below use ROC-AUC only.

Sorted by ROC-AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
PrunE
0.8159 ±0.0535
2
EGTAS
0.7919 ±0.0137
3
UGTs
0.7840
This paper
4
DENSE
0.7830
This paper
12
GIN
0.7042 ±0.0478

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
444
UGTs
0.6480
This paper
472
DENSE
0.6220
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)