ICML 2022

A Generalization of ViT/MLP-Mixer to Graphs

Xiaoxin He, Bryan Hooi, T. Laurent, Adam Perold, Yann LeCun, X. Bresson

Main figure for A Generalization of ViT/MLP-Mixer to Graphs

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown great potential in the field of graph representation learning. Standard GNNs define a local message-passing mechanism which propagates information over the whole graph domain by stacking multiple layers. This paradigm suffers from two major limitations, over-squashing and poor long-range dependencies, that can be solved using global attention but significantly increases the computational cost to quadratic complexity. In this work, we propose an alternative approach to overcome these structural limitations by leveraging the ViT/MLP-Mixer architectures introduced in computer vision. We introduce a new class of GNNs, called Graph ViT/MLP-Mixer, that holds three key properties. First, they capture long-range dependency and mitigate the issue of over-squashing as demonstrated on Long Range Graph Benchmark and TreeNeighbourMatch datasets. Second, they offer better speed and memory efficiency with a complexity linear to the number of nodes and edges, surpassing the related Graph Transformer and expressive GNN models. Third, they show high expressivity in terms of graph isomorphism as they can distinguish at least 3-WL non-isomorphic graphs. We test our architecture on 4 simulated datasets and 7 real-world benchmarks, and show highly competitive results on all of them. The source code is available for reproducibility at:.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
HIMP
0.8740 ±0.0050
2
GINE w/ VN
0.8720 ±0.0030
3
NaiveGINe+ K=3 w/ VN
0.8700 ±0.0040
5
GINE
actual #5 vs paper #143 138 places worse
0.8668 ±0.0077
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #143 138 places worse
paper 0.7730 ±0.0064
14
GCN
actual #14 vs paper #217 203 places worse
0.8400 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #217 203 places worse
paper 0.7525 ±0.0031
paper 0.7525 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0875
24
GIN
0.8290 ±0.0069
45
GatedGCN
actual #45 vs paper #174 129 places worse
0.8070 ±0.0110
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #174 129 places worse
paper 0.7641 ±0.0057
paper 0.7641 ±0.0057 Δ today 0.0429
89
GatedGCN-MLP-Mixer
0.7910 ±0.0040
This paper
97
GINE-MLP-Mixer
0.7868 ±0.0043
This paper
102
GatedGCN-ViT
0.7857 ±0.0028
This paper
103
GINE-ViT
0.7851 ±0.0077
This paper
108
GraphTrans-ViT
0.7835 ±0.0032
This paper
115
GCN-ViT
0.7820 ±0.0096
This paper
116
GraphTrans-MLP-Mixer
0.7817 ±0.0040
This paper
117
GCN-MLP-Mixer
0.7816 ±0.0075
This paper
174
GraphTrans
0.7646 ±0.0055
This paper

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
0.2421 ±0.0016
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
63
GraphTrans-MLP-Mixer
0.2480 ±0.0013
This paper
72
GCN-MLP-Mixer
0.2486 ±0.0041
This paper
80
GINE-MLP-Mixer
0.2494 ±0.0007
This paper
96
GatedGCN-MLP-Mixer
0.2508 ±0.0007
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
0.7261 ±0.0011
41
Graph MLP-Mixer
0.6970 ±0.0080
This paper
44
Graph ViT
0.6942 ±0.0075
This paper
65
SUN
0.6730 ±0.0078
This paper
87
GPS
0.6562 ±0.0115
This paper
89
SAN+RWSE
actual #89 vs paper #111 22 places worse
0.6562 ±0.0075
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #111 22 places worse
paper 0.6439 ±0.0075
best at pub: LRGB (NeurIPS 2022)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6439 ±0.0075 Δ today 0.0123
107
GNN-AK+
0.6480 ±0.0089
This paper
116
SAN+LapPE
0.6384 ±0.0121
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Schrödinger
0.9913 ±0.0004
2
CNN
0.9907 ±0.0007
3
MPNN
0.9895 ±0.0006
11
GatedGCN
actual #11 vs paper #81 70 places worse
0.9855 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #81 70 places worse
paper 0.9776 ±0.0017
17
GatedGCN-ViT
0.9846 ±0.0009
This paper
32
GIN
0.9833 ±0.0011
33
GatedGCN-MLP-Mixer
0.9832 ±0.0004
This paper
43
GINE-ViT
0.9820 ±0.0005
This paper
58
GINE-MLP-Mixer
0.9809 ±0.0004
This paper
79
GraphTrans
0.9782 ±0.0012
This paper
89
GraphTrans-MLP-Mixer
0.9742 ±0.0011
This paper
99
GraphTrans-ViT
0.9725 ±0.0023
This paper
105
GINE
0.9705 ±0.0023
This paper
119
GCN-ViT
0.9600 ±0.0015
This paper
126
MLP
0.9534 ±0.0014
128
GCN-MLP-Mixer
0.9516 ±0.0027
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #136 1 place worse
0.9269 ±0.0023
actual #135 vs paper #136 1 place worse
paper 0.9269 ±0.0023
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
32
GraphTrans-MLP-Mixer
0.7396 ±0.0033
This paper
53
GraphTrans-ViT
0.7211 ±0.0055
This paper
60
GatedGCN-ViT
0.7158 ±0.0009
This paper
62
GatedGCN
actual #62 vs paper #98 36 places worse
0.7133 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #98 36 places worse
paper 0.6628 ±0.0017
paper 0.6628 ±0.0017 Δ at pub 0.0505
67
GatedGCN-MLP-Mixer
0.7060 ±0.0022
This paper
71
GINE-ViT
0.6967 ±0.0040
This paper
84
GINE-MLP-Mixer
0.6833 ±0.0022
This paper
87
GraphTrans
0.6809 ±0.0020
This paper
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
115
GCN-ViT
0.6367 ±0.0027
This paper
119
GINE
0.6131 ±0.0035
This paper
120
GCN-MLP-Mixer
0.6111 ±0.0017
This paper
124
GCN
actual #124 vs paper #130 6 places worse
0.5839 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #130 6 places worse
paper 0.5423 ±0.0056
paper 0.5423 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.0416
126
MLP
0.5634 ±0.0018
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
30
Graph ViT/MLP-Mixer
1.0000
This paper
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #92 84 places worse
1.0000
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #92 84 places worse
paper 0.0000
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.0000 Δ today 1.0000
1
PPGN
1.0000
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
3
AgentNet
1.0000
35
GraphSAGE
0.9993 ±0.0047
36
GatedGCN
actual #36 vs paper #92 56 places worse
0.9960 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #92 56 places worse
paper 0.0000
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.0000 Δ today 0.9960
94
Graphtransformer
0.0000
This paper
93
GINE
0.0000
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 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