ICLR 2023

LMC: Fast Training of GNNs via subgraph-wise sampling with Provable Convergence

Zhihao Shi, Xize Liang, Jie Wang

Main figure for LMC: Fast Training of GNNs via subgraph-wise sampling with Provable Convergence

Abstract

The message passing-based graph neural networks (GNNs) have achieved great success in many real-world applications. However, training GNNs on large-scale graphs suffers from the well-known neighbor explosion problem, i.e., the exponentially increasing dependencies of nodes with the number of message passing layers. Subgraph-wise sampling methods---a promising class of mini-batch training techniques---discard messages outside the mini-batches in backward passes to avoid the neighbor explosion problem at the expense of gradient estimation accuracy. This poses significant challenges to their convergence analysis and convergence speeds, which seriously limits their reliable real-world applications. To address this challenge, we propose a novel subgraph-wise sampling method with a convergence guarantee, namely Local Message Compensation (LMC). To the best of our knowledge, LMC is the first subgraph-wise sampling method with provable convergence. The key idea of LMC is to retrieve the discarded messages in backward passes based on a message passing formulation of backward passes. By efficient and effective compensations for the discarded messages in both forward and backward passes, LMC computes accurate mini-batch gradients and thus accelerates convergence. We further show that LMC converges to first-order stationary points of GNNs. Experiments on large-scale benchmark tasks demonstrate that LMC significantly outperforms state-of-the-art subgraph-wise sampling methods in terms of efficiency.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

Reddit

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is F1. The paper reports 4 values on F1 , 1 value on Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) and 1 value on Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) .

#ModelF1 ↑ defaultAccuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) ↑Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ± 0.0003
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710 ± 0.0000
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ± 0.0001
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
4
GraphSAINT
0.9700
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
paper 0.9700
paper 0.9700 Δ at pub 0.0040
7
GCNII (LMC)
—
—
0.9688 ± 0.0003
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) 0.9688 ± 0.0003
This paper
8
SIGN
0.9680
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
This paper
14
GraphSAGE
0.9660
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
25
VR-GCN
0.9640 ±0.0010
best reported
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
paper 0.9450
53
GCN (LMC)
—
0.9544 ± 0.0002
—
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) 0.9544 ± 0.0002
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
This paper
104
LADIES
0.9320 ±0.0010
best reported
——
Accuracy (percentage; caption L936 states only 'prediction performance', no explicit F1/macro-F1 definition) —
Accuracy (percentage; no explicit metric definition in source) —
paper 0.9280
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
4
GraphSAINT
actual #4 vs paper #4
0.9950
actual #4 vs paper #4
paper 0.9950
paper 0.9950 Δ at pub 0.0010
11
GAS (GCNII)
0.9936 ±0.0002
This paper
15
LMC (GCN)
0.9887 ±0.0004
This paper
21
GCN
0.9850
42
VR-GCN
actual #42 vs paper #93 51 places worse
0.9780
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #93 51 places worse
paper 0.8560
66
SIGN
0.9700
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published