SUREL+: Moving from Walks to Sets for Scalable Subgraph-based Graph Representation Learning

Haoteng Yin, Muhan Zhang, Jianguo Wang, Pan Li

Main figure for SUREL+: Moving from Walks to Sets for Scalable Subgraph-based Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

Subgraph-based graph representation learning (SGRL) has recently emerged as a powerful tool in many prediction tasks on graphs due to its advantages in model expressiveness and generalization ability. Most previous SGRL models face computational challenges associated with the high cost of subgraph extraction for each training or test query. Recently, SUREL was proposed to accelerate SGRL, which samples random walks offline and joins these walks online as a proxy of subgraph for representation learning. Thanks to the reusability of sampled walks across different queries, SUREL achieves state-of-the-art performance in terms of scalability and prediction accuracy. However, SUREL still suffers from high computational overhead caused by node duplication in sampled walks. In this work, we propose a novel framework SUREL+ that upgrades SUREL by using node sets instead of walks to represent subgraphs. This set-based representation eliminates repeated nodes by definition but can also be irregular in size. To address this issue, we design a customized sparse data structure to efficiently store and access node sets and provide a specialized operator to join them in parallel batches. SUREL+ is modularized to support multiple types of set samplers, structural features, and neural encoders to complement the structural information loss after the reduction from walks to sets. Extensive experiments have been performed to validate SUREL+ in the prediction tasks of links, relation types, and higher-order patterns. SUREL+ achieves 3-11$ $ speedups of SUREL while maintaining comparable or even better prediction performance; compared to other SGRL baselines, SUREL+ achieves $ $20$ $ speedups and significantly improves the prediction accuracy.

Proposed method: SUREL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 2 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
actual #9 vs paper #91 82 places worse
0.6621 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #91 82 places worse
paper 0.4475 ±0.0107
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.4475 ±0.0107 Δ at pub 0.0421 Δ today 0.2146
20
SEAL
actual #20 vs paper #26 6 places worse
0.6474 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #26 6 places worse
paper 0.6364 ±0.0071
25
SUREL
0.6410 ±0.0106
This paper
28
SAGE
0.5944 ±0.0137
37
GDGNN
0.5474 ±0.0048
This paper
48
GraphSAINT
0.5312 ±0.0052
This paper
94
MLP
0.4438 ±0.0347
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
CFG
0.8997 ±0.0015
2
SIEG
0.8987 ±0.0018
3
LPFormer
0.8981 ±0.0013
4
SUREL
0.8974 ±0.0018
This paper
8
SEAL
0.8767 ±0.0032
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
13
GDGNN
0.8696 ±0.0028
This paper
30
SAGE
0.8292 ±0.0022
43
GraphSAINT
0.7985 ±0.0040
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere