LON-GNN: Spectral GNNs with Learnable Orthonormal Basis

Q. Tao, Zhen Wang, Wenyuan Yu, Yaliang Li, Zhewei Wei

Main figure for LON-GNN: Spectral GNNs with Learnable Orthonormal Basis

Abstract

In recent years, a plethora of spectral graph neural networks (GNN) methods have utilized polynomial basis with learnable coefficients to achieve top-tier performances on many node-level tasks. Although various kinds of polynomial bases have been explored, each such method adopts a fixed polynomial basis which might not be the optimal choice for the given graph. Besides, we identify the so-called over-passing issue of these methods and show that it is somewhat rooted in their less-principled regularization strategy and unnormalized basis. In this paper, we make the first attempts to address these two issues. Leveraging Jacobi polynomials, we design a novel spectral GNN, LON-GNN, with Learnable OrthoNormal bases and prove that regularizing coefficients becomes equivalent to regularizing the norm of learned filter function now. We conduct extensive experiments on diverse graph datasets to evaluate the fitting and generalization capability of LON-GNN, where the results imply its superiority.

Proposed method: LON-GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 11 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #488 480 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #488 480 places worse
paper 0.8826 ±0.0073
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #484 463 places worse
0.9573 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #484 463 places worse
paper 0.8851 ±0.0031
33
GPRGNN
actual #33 vs paper #111 78 places worse
0.9549 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #111 78 places worse
paper 0.9385 ±0.0028
35
JacobiConv
0.9543 ±0.0023
This paper
72
LON-GNN
0.9466 ±0.0052
This paper
119
ChebNet
actual #119 vs paper #119
0.9377 ±0.0032
actual #119 vs paper #119
paper 0.9377 ±0.0032

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9377 ±0.0032 Δ at pub 0.0019
127
BernNet
actual #127 vs paper #129 2 places worse
0.9363 ±0.0035
actual #127 vs paper #129 2 places worse
paper 0.9363 ±0.0035

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9363 ±0.0035 Δ at pub 0.0031
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #377 375 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #377 375 places worse
paper 0.8332 ±0.0033
paper 0.8332 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0453 Δ today 0.1080
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
59
LON-GNN
0.9093 ±0.0082
This paper
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #303 245 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #303 245 places worse
paper 0.8532 ±0.0037
paper 0.8532 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0272 Δ today 0.0561
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #258 186 places worse
0.9050 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #258 186 places worse
paper 0.8685 ±0.0025
paper 0.8685 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0035 Δ today 0.0365
77
JacobiConv
0.9039 ±0.0029
This paper
180
BernNet
actual #180 vs paper #228 48 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0041
best reported
actual #180 vs paper #228 48 places worse
paper 0.8764 ±0.0044
paper 0.8764 ±0.0044 Δ at pub 0.0097
216
ChebNet
actual #216 vs paper #234 18 places worse
0.8782 ±0.0072
best reported
actual #216 vs paper #234 18 places worse
paper 0.8754 ±0.0043

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8754 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0028
320
MLP
0.8463

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
10
JacobiConv
0.9295 ±0.0246
This paper
17
BernNet
0.9213 ±0.0164
This paper
19
Jacobi+Learnable
0.9191
This paper
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.9181 ±0.0196
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.9181 ±0.0196

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9181 ±0.0196 Δ at pub 0.0001
22
GPRGNN
actual #22 vs paper #23 1 place worse
0.9137 ±0.0181
actual #22 vs paper #23 1 place worse
paper 0.9137 ±0.0181

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9137 ±0.0181 Δ at pub 0.0001
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
85
ChebNet
actual #85 vs paper #115 30 places worse
0.8533 ±0.0104
best reported
actual #85 vs paper #115 30 places worse
paper 0.8393 ±0.0213

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8393 ±0.0213 Δ at pub 0.0140
103
LON-GNN
0.8447 ±0.0345
This paper
116
Jacobi+OrthNorm
0.8383
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
170
GCN
actual #170 vs paper #321 151 places worse
0.8082 ±0.0360
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #321 151 places worse
paper 0.6590 ±0.0443
paper 0.6590 ±0.0443 Δ at pub 0.1330 Δ today 0.1492
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
21
BernNet
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.4179 ±0.0101
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.4179 ±0.0101

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4179 ±0.0101 Δ at pub 0.0008
34
JacobiConv
0.4117 ±0.0064
This paper
41
APPNP
actual #41 vs paper #56 15 places worse
0.4046 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #56 15 places worse
paper 0.3966 ±0.0055

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3966 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0080
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #52
0.3992 ±0.0067
actual #52 vs paper #52
paper 0.3992 ±0.0067

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3992 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.0062
66
LON-GNN
0.3910 ±0.0159
This paper
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
88
ChebNet
actual #88 vs paper #111 23 places worse
0.3802 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #111 23 places worse
paper 0.3761 ±0.0089

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3761 ±0.0089 Δ at pub 0.0041
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #284 149 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #284 149 places worse
paper 0.3323 ±0.0116
paper 0.3323 ±0.0116 Δ at pub 0.0367
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
31
JacobiConv
0.7420 ±0.0103
This paper
35
LON-GNN
0.7300 ±0.0220
This paper
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #138 86 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #138 86 places worse
paper 0.5961 ±0.0221
paper 0.5961 ±0.0221 Δ at pub 0.0799 Δ today 0.1072
66
BernNet
0.6829 ±0.0158
This paper
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #72
0.6728 ±0.0109
actual #72 vs paper #72
paper 0.6728 ±0.0109

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6728 ±0.0109 Δ at pub 0.0081
79
APPNP
actual #79 vs paper #183 104 places worse
0.6670 ±0.0270
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #183 104 places worse
paper 0.5184 ±0.0182
paper 0.5184 ±0.0182 Δ at pub 0.1486
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
140
ChebNet
0.5928 ±0.0125
This paper
169
MLP
0.5429
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #102 56 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #102 56 places worse
paper 0.4678 ±0.0087
paper 0.4678 ±0.0087 Δ at pub 0.0892 Δ today 0.1389
47
LON-GNN
0.6061 ±0.0169
This paper
60
JacobiConv
0.5738 ±0.0125
This paper
68
APPNP
actual #68 vs paper #223 155 places worse
0.5590 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #223 155 places worse
paper 0.3471 ±0.0057
paper 0.3471 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.2119
76
GPRGNN
actual #76 vs paper #90 14 places worse
0.5015 ±0.0192
actual #76 vs paper #90 14 places worse
paper 0.5015 ±0.0192

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5015 ±0.0192 Δ at pub 0.0112 Δ today 0.0420
86
BernNet
actual #86 vs paper #86
0.5139 ±0.0092
best reported
actual #86 vs paper #86
paper 0.5135 ±0.0073

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5135 ±0.0073 Δ today 0.0004
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
125
ChebNet
actual #125 vs paper #158 33 places worse
0.4386 ±0.0164
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #158 33 places worse
paper 0.4055 ±0.0042
paper 0.4055 ±0.0042 Δ today 0.0331
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079
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