KDD 2023

When to Pre-Train Graph Neural Networks? From Data Generation Perspective!

Yuxuan Cao, Jiarong Xu, Carl Yang, Jiaan Wang, Yunchao Zhang, Chunping Wang, Lei Chen, Yang Yang

Main figure for When to Pre-Train Graph Neural Networks? From Data Generation Perspective!

Abstract

In recent years, graph pre-training has gained significant attention, focusing on acquiring transferable knowledge from unlabeled graph data to improve downstream performance. Despite these recent endeavors, the problem of negative transfer remains a major concern when utilizing graph pre-trained models to downstream tasks. Previous studies made great efforts on the issue of what to pre-train and how to pre-train by designing a variety of graph pre-training and fine-tuning strategies. However, there are cases where even the most advanced ``pre-train and fine-tune'' paradigms fail to yield distinct benefits. This paper introduces a generic framework W2PGNN to answer the crucial question of when to pre-train (i.e., in what situations could we take advantage of graph pre-training) before performing effortful pre-training or fine-tuning. We start from a new perspective to explore the complex generative mechanisms from the pre-training data to downstream data. In particular, W2PGNN first fits the pre-training data into graphon bases, each element of graphon basis (i.e., a graphon) identifies a fundamental transferable pattern shared by a collection of pre-training graphs. All convex combinations of graphon bases give rise to a generator space, from which graphs generated form the solution space for those downstream data that can benefit from pre-training. In this manner, the feasibility of pre-training can be quantified as the generation probability of the downstream data from any generator in the generator space. W2PGNN offers three broad applications: providing the application scope of graph pre-trained models, quantifying the feasibility of pre-training, and assistance in selecting pre-training data to enhance downstream performance. We provide a theoretically sound solution for the first application and extensive empirical justifications for the latter two applications.

Proposed method: W2PGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
ProtoMol
0.9140 ±0.0030
2
MMSG
0.9080 ±0.0050
3
MemGNN
0.9070
43
GIN
0.8646 ±0.0081
252
All Datasets
0.7486
This paper
257
W2PGNN
0.7354
This paper
268
Graph Statistics
0.7152
This paper
269
Clustering Coefficient
0.7152
This paper
270
Betweenness Centrality
0.7152
This paper
280
Spectrum of Graph Laplacian
0.7021
This paper
287
EGI
0.6848
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
MAGPrompt+
0.9432 ±0.0238
2
CamS-LLaMA
0.9420
3
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9400 ±0.0210
34
GIN
0.8875 ±0.0049
223
Betweenness Centrality
0.6741
This paper
260
EGI
0.6565
This paper
261
Spectrum of Graph Laplacian
0.6565
This paper
266
W2PGNN
0.6546
This paper
293
All Datasets
0.6267
This paper
296
Graph Statistics
0.6236
This paper
298
Clustering Coefficient
0.6100
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
SE(3)-I MPPH
0.9930 ±0.0040
2
KA-GCN
0.9920 ±0.0050
3
KA-GAT
0.9910 ±0.0050
19
GCN
0.9130 ±0.0170
201
EGI
0.6521
This paper
206
W2PGNN
0.6421
This paper
212
Spectrum of Graph Laplacian
0.6302
This paper
214
Graph Statistics
0.6299
This paper
219
All Datasets
0.6058
This paper
220
Clustering Coefficient
0.6035
This paper
221
Betweenness Centrality
0.6035
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)