Simplifying Subgraph Representation Learning for Scalable Link Prediction

Paul Louis, Shweta Ann Jacob, Amirali Salehi-Abari

Main figure for Simplifying Subgraph Representation Learning for Scalable Link Prediction

Abstract

Link prediction on graphs is a fundamental problem, addressing the task of predicting potential connections between entities in a network, enabling the identification of missing or future relationships. Its applications span various domains, including social networks, recommendation systems, and biological networks, where predicting links can enhance our understanding of network structure and facilitate more effective information dissemination or resource allocation. Subgraph representation learning approaches (SGRLs), by transforming link prediction to graph classification on the subgraphs around the links, have achieved state-of-the-art performance in link prediction. However, SGRLs are computationally expensive and not scalable to large-scale graphs due to expensive subgraph-level operations. To unlock the scalability of SGRLs, we propose a new class of SGRLs, that we call Scalable Simplified SGRL (S3GRL). Aimed at faster training and inference, S3GRL simplifies the message passing and aggregation operations in each link's subgraph. S3GRL, as a scalability framework, accommodates various subgraph sampling strategies and diffusion operators to emulate computationally expensive SGRLs. We propose multiple instances of S3GRL and empirically study them on small to large-scale graphs. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed S3GRL models scale up SGRLs without significant performance compromise (even with considerable gains in some cases), while offering substantially lower computational footprints (e.g., multi-fold inference and training speedup).

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

OGB

#ModelHits@20 ↑Paper
1
ELGNN
0.9777 ±0.0037
2
GIDN
0.9542
3
AGDN
0.9538 ±0.0094
16
BUDDY
0.7851 ±0.0136
This paper
20
SAGE
0.6719 ±0.0118
24
GCN
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
0.6476 ±0.0145
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #53 29 places worse
paper 0.3707 ±0.0507
paper 0.3707 ±0.0507 Δ at pub 0.0753 Δ today 0.2769
38
GraphSAGE
0.5390 ±0.0474
This paper
43
SEAL
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
0.4974 ±0.0239
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #59 16 places worse
paper 0.3056 ±0.0386
50
AA
actual #50 vs paper #75 25 places worse
0.3975
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #75 25 places worse
paper 0.1861
51
CN
actual #51 vs paper #78 27 places worse
0.3869
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #78 27 places worse
paper 0.1773
71
PoS+
0.2224 ±0.0336
This paper
#ModelHits@100 ↑Paper
1
OGB Leader
0.6524 ±0.0150
2
PRB
0.6347 ±0.0175
3
LPFormer
0.6332 ±0.0063
14
SAGE
0.5013 ±0.0055
15
BUDDY
0.4985 ±0.0020
This paper
19
SEAL
0.4880 ±0.0316
This paper
23
MLP
0.4600
31
PoS+
0.4242 ±0.0180
This paper
39
AA
0.3245
This paper
45
GCN
actual #45 vs paper #59 14 places worse
0.3084 ±0.0178
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #59 14 places worse
paper 0.1867 ±0.0132
paper 0.1867 ±0.0132 Δ at pub 0.0003 Δ today 0.1217
49
CN
0.2765
This paper
63
GraphSAGE
0.1655 ±0.0240
This paper
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
6
PoS+
0.8814 ±0.0008
This paper
8
SEAL
0.8767 ±0.0032
This paper
9
BUDDY
0.8756 ±0.0011
This paper
12
GCN
actual #12 vs paper #21 9 places worse
0.8705 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #21 9 places worse
paper 0.8474 ±0.0021
paper 0.8474 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0231
30
SAGE
0.8292 ±0.0022
32
GraphSAGE
actual #32 vs paper #32
0.8264 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #32
paper 0.8260 ±0.0036

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8260 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.0004
52
AA
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
0.7596
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #61 9 places worse
paper 0.5189
54
CN
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
0.7430
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #63 9 places worse
paper 0.5147
71
MLP
0.3917 ±0.0044
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere