ICLR 2022

Latent Graph Inference using Product Manifolds

H. Borde, Anees Kazi, Federico Barbero, Pietro Lio

Main figure for Latent Graph Inference using Product Manifolds

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks usually rely on the assumption that the graph topology is available to the network as well as optimal for the downstream task. Latent graph inference allows models to dynamically learn the intrinsic graph structure of problems where the connectivity patterns of data may not be directly accessible. In this work, we generalize the discrete Differentiable Graph Module (dDGM) for latent graph learning. The original dDGM architecture used the Euclidean plane to encode latent features based on which the latent graphs were generated. By incorporating Riemannian geometry into the model and generating more complex embedding spaces, we can improve the performance of the latent graph inference system. In particular, we propose a computationally tractable approach to produce product manifolds of constant curvature model spaces that can encode latent features of varying structure. The latent representations mapped onto the inferred product manifold are used to compute richer similarity measures that are leveraged by the latent graph learning model to obtain optimized latent graphs. Moreover, the curvature of the product manifold is learned during training alongside the rest of the network parameters and based on the downstream task, rather than it being a static embedding space. Our novel approach is tested on a wide range of datasets, and outperforms the original dDGM model.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #114 105 places worse
0.9774 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #114 105 places worse
paper 0.9551 ±0.0034
paper 0.9551 ±0.0034 Δ at pub 0.0099 Δ today 0.0223
17
SAGE
0.9739 ±0.0018
51
GCN-dDGM-EHS
0.9618 ±0.0031
This paper
55
GCN-dDGM-H
0.9606 ±0.0042
This paper
56
GCN-dDGM-E
0.9603 ±0.0041
This paper
58
MLP*
actual #58 vs paper #161 103 places worse
0.9491 ±0.0030
actual #58 vs paper #161 103 places worse
paper 0.9491 ±0.0030
62
GCN-dDGM-S
0.9591 ±0.0041
This paper

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
134
GATv2
actual #134 vs paper #366 232 places worse
0.8063 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #134 vs paper #366 232 places worse
paper 0.6202 ±0.0260
349
GATv2-dDGM-E
0.6659 ±0.0030
This paper
351
MLP
actual #351 vs paper #351
0.6605 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #351
paper 0.6605 ±0.0020
paper 0.6605 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.1813
355
GATv2-dDGM-EH
0.6562 ±0.0020
This paper
363
GATv2-dDGM-H
0.6395 ±0.0042
This paper

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*
actual #34 vs paper #279 245 places worse
0.9230 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #279 245 places worse
paper 0.7778 ±0.1024

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7778 ±0.1024 Δ at pub 0.0903 Δ today 0.1452
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
209
GCN-dDGM*-EH
0.8167 ±0.0705
This paper
224
GCN-dDGM*-ES
0.8111 ±0.1030
This paper
225
GCN-dDGM*-HS
0.8111 ±0.0969
This paper
226
GCN-dDGM*-EHH
0.8111 ±0.0509
This paper
244
GCN-dDGM*-E
0.8000 ±0.0831
This paper
254
GCN-dDGM*-H
0.7944 ±0.0788
This paper
255
GCN-dDGM*-EHS
0.7944 ±0.0611
This paper
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #606 349 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #606 349 places worse
paper 0.4166 ±0.1172
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)
paper 0.4166 ±0.1172 Δ at pub 0.3674 Δ today 0.3767
265
GCN-dDGM*-HH
0.7889 ±0.0853
This paper
341
GCN-dDGM*-SS
0.7389 ±0.0862
This paper
342
GCN-dDGM*-S
0.7388 ±0.0995
This paper
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere