Asymmetric Learning for Graph Neural Network based Link Prediction

Kai-Lang Yao, Wusuo Li

Main figure for Asymmetric Learning for Graph Neural Network based Link Prediction

Abstract

Link prediction is a fundamental problem in many graph based applications, such as protein-protein interaction prediction. Graph neural network (GNN) has recently been widely used for link prediction. However, existing GNN based link prediction (GNN-LP) methods suffer from scalability problem during training for large-scale graphs, which has received little attention by researchers. In this paper, we first give computation complexity analysis of existing GNN-LP methods, which reveals that the scalability problem stems from their symmetric learning strategy adopting the same class of GNN models to learn representation for both head and tail nodes. Then we propose a novel method, called sym etric earning (AML), for GNN-LP. The main idea of AML is to adopt a GNN model for learning head node representation while using a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) model for learning tail node representation. Furthermore, AML proposes a row-wise sampling strategy to generate mini-batch for training, which is a necessary component to make the asymmetric learning strategy work for training speedup. To the best of our knowledge, AML is the first GNN-LP method adopting an asymmetric learning strategy for node representation learning. Experiments on three real large-scale datasets show that AML is $1.7 7.3 $ faster in training than baselines with a symmetric learning strategy, while having almost no accuracy loss.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelHits@50 ↑Paper
1
PROXI
0.7650 ±0.0027
2
OGB Leader
0.7129 ±0.0018
3
GIDN
0.7096 ±0.0055
9
GCN
0.6621 ±0.0033
20
SEAL
actual #20 vs paper #32 12 places worse
0.6474 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #32 12 places worse
paper 0.5755 ±0.0072
23
AA
actual #23 vs paper #33 10 places worse
0.6435
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #33 10 places worse
paper 0.5649
27
CN
actual #27 vs paper #62 35 places worse
0.6137
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #62 35 places worse
paper 0.4996
28
SAGE
actual #28 vs paper #41 13 places worse
0.5944 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #41 13 places worse
paper 0.5457 ±0.0082
paper 0.5457 ±0.0082 Δ at pub 0.0006 Δ today 0.0487
31
DE-GNN
0.5787 ±0.0079
This paper
32
AML
0.5760 ±0.0071
This paper
34
GAT
actual #34 vs paper #34
0.5643 ±0.0086
actual #34 vs paper #34
paper 0.5643 ±0.0086
prev best: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5643 ±0.0086 Δ at pub 0.0493
68
Node2Vec
actual #68 vs paper #68
0.4929 ±0.0064
actual #68 vs paper #68
paper 0.4929 ±0.0064

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4929 ±0.0064 Δ at pub 0.0039
94
MLP
0.4438 ±0.0347
98
MF
actual #98 vs paper #103 5 places worse
0.4181 ±0.0167
best reported
actual #98 vs paper #103 5 places worse
paper 0.3793 ±0.0076
paper 0.3793 ±0.0076 Δ at pub 0.0097 Δ today 0.0388
#ModelHits@100 ↑Paper
1
OGB Leader
0.6524 ±0.0150
2
PRB
0.6347 ±0.0175
3
LPFormer
0.6332 ±0.0063
11
AML-R (G)
0.5030 ±0.0061
This paper
13
AML
0.5023 ±0.0078
This paper
14
SAGE
actual #14 vs paper #14
0.5013 ±0.0055
actual #14 vs paper #14
paper 0.5013 ±0.0055
paper 0.5013 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.3358
16
GAT
0.4971 ±0.0048
This paper
19
SEAL
0.4880 ±0.0316
This paper
21
SMLP
0.4742 ±0.0137
This paper
23
MLP
0.4600
27
DE-GNN
0.4570 ±0.0346
This paper
39
AA
0.3245
This paper
42
MF
actual #42 vs paper #42
0.3230 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #42
paper 0.3229 ±0.0094

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3229 ±0.0094 Δ at pub 0.0001
45
GCN
0.3084 ±0.0178
49
CN
actual #49 vs paper #52 3 places worse
0.2765
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #52 3 places worse
paper 0.2760
paper 0.2760 Δ at pub 0.0005 Δ today 0.0005
57
Node2Vec
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.2230 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.2226 ±0.0088

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2226 ±0.0088 Δ at pub 0.0004
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
8
SEAL
0.8767 ±0.0032
This paper
12
GCN
0.8705 ±0.0004
14
AML (G)
0.8670 ±0.0005
This paper
16
AML-R (G)
0.8591 ±0.0004
This paper
44
DE-GNN
0.7885 ±0.0017
This paper
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
56
SMLP
0.6982 ±0.0005
This paper
59
Node2Vec
0.6141 ±0.0011
This paper
62
MF
0.5186 ±0.0443
This paper
71
MLP
0.3917 ±0.0044
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere