ICML 2023

Leveraging Label Non-Uniformity for Node Classification in Graph Neural Networks

Feng Ji, See Hian Lee, Hanyang Meng, Kai Zhao, Jielong Yang, Wee Peng Tay

Main figure for Leveraging Label Non-Uniformity for Node Classification in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

In node classification using graph neural networks (GNNs), a typical model generates logits for different class labels at each node. A softmax layer often outputs a label prediction based on the largest logit. We demonstrate that it is possible to infer hidden graph structural information from the dataset using these logits. We introduce the key notion of label non-uniformity, which is derived from the Wasserstein distance between the softmax distribution of the logits and the uniform distribution. We demonstrate that nodes with small label non-uniformity are harder to classify correctly. We theoretically analyze how the label non-uniformity varies across the graph, which provides insights into boosting the model performance: increasing training samples with high non-uniformity or dropping edges to reduce the maximal cut size of the node set of small non-uniformity. These mechanisms can be easily added to a base GNN model. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach improves the performance of many benchmark base models.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 14 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #626 605 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #626 605 places worse
paper 0.8065 ±0.0049
paper 0.8065 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0652 Δ today 0.0939
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #606 563 places worse
0.8900
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #606 563 places worse
paper 0.8100 ±0.0055
paper 0.8100 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0800
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #536 492 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #536 492 places worse
paper 0.8191 ±0.0048
paper 0.8191 ±0.0048 Δ at pub 0.0699 Δ today 0.0706
220
wGNN
0.8523 ±0.0069
This paper
260
PTDNet
actual #260 vs paper #439 179 places worse
0.8440 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #260 vs paper #439 179 places worse
paper 0.8280 ±0.0260

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8280 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0160
484
GraphCON
0.8236 ±0.0084
This paper
504
Self-training
0.8227 ±0.0033
This paper
527
MaskGAE
0.8203 ±0.0076
This paper
586
ReNode
0.8128 ±0.0075
This paper
671
GIL
0.7965 ±0.0138
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
24
DropEdge
actual #24 vs paper #576 552 places worse
0.8130
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #576 552 places worse
paper 0.7072 ±0.0056
paper 0.7072 ±0.0056 Δ at pub 0.1058
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #610 575 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #610 575 places worse
paper 0.7021 ±0.0052
paper 0.7021 ±0.0052 Δ at pub 0.0992 Δ today 0.1059
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #535 491 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #535 491 places worse
paper 0.7123 ±0.0066
paper 0.7123 ±0.0066 Δ at pub 0.0820 Δ today 0.0910
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
82
PTDNet
actual #82 vs paper #362 280 places worse
0.7840
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #362 280 places worse
paper 0.7270 ±0.0180
paper 0.7270 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0570
177
MaskGAE
actual #177 vs paper #616 439 places worse
0.7510 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #177 vs paper #616 439 places worse
paper 0.7010 ±0.0137
235
wGNN
0.7395 ±0.0046
This paper
300
Self-training
actual #300 vs paper #300
0.7324 ±0.0044
actual #300 vs paper #300
paper 0.7324 ±0.0044
paper 0.7324 ±0.0044 Δ at pub 0.0103
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
573
GraphCON
0.7080 ±0.0140
This paper
636
ReNode
0.6954 ±0.0079
This paper
735
GIL
0.6643 ±0.0156
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #583 565 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #583 565 places worse
paper 0.7903 ±0.0038
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #601 581 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #601 581 places worse
paper 0.7891 ±0.0042
43
DropEdge
actual #43 vs paper #570 527 places worse
0.9090
best reported
actual #43 vs paper #570 527 places worse
paper 0.7918 ±0.0033
paper 0.7918 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.1172
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
187
MaskGAE
actual #187 vs paper #437 250 places worse
0.8748 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #187 vs paper #437 250 places worse
paper 0.8011 ±0.0051
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
246
PTDNet
actual #246 vs paper #474 228 places worse
0.8540
best reported
actual #246 vs paper #474 228 places worse
paper 0.7980 ±0.0240
paper 0.7980 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0560
339
simple multi-step model
0.8178 ±0.0022
This paper
418
Self-training
actual #418 vs paper #418
0.8032 ±0.0018
actual #418 vs paper #418
paper 0.8032 ±0.0018
paper 0.8032 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0097
487
ReNode
0.7962 ±0.0038
This paper
574
GraphCON
0.7911 ±0.0178
This paper
729
GIL
0.7718 ±0.0100
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #437 435 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #437 435 places worse
paper 0.9036 ±0.0085
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #418 410 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #418 410 places worse
paper 0.9066 ±0.0052
154
simple multi-step model
0.9350 ±0.0028
This paper
161
MaskGAE*
actual #161 vs paper #370 209 places worse
0.9342 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #161 vs paper #370 209 places worse
paper 0.9155 ±0.0023
324
DropEdge
actual #324 vs paper #430 106 places worse
0.9221
best reported
actual #324 vs paper #430 106 places worse
paper 0.9049 ±0.0064
paper 0.9049 ±0.0064 Δ at pub 0.0172
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
448
GraphCON
0.9004 ±0.0054
This paper
461
GIL
0.8960 ±0.0130
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
536
simple multi-step model
0.5811 ±0.0972
This paper
537
ReNode
0.5811 ±0.0472
This paper
564
wGNN1
0.5541 ±0.0735
This paper
573
Self-training
0.5414 ±0.0745
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
0.7033
97
simple multi-step model
0.6445 ±0.0240
This paper
98
wGNN2
0.6428 ±0.0194
This paper
100
Self-training
0.6397 ±0.0233
This paper
101
wGNN1
0.6395 ±0.0194
This paper
169
MLP
0.5429
174
ReNode
0.5298 ±0.0284
This paper
194
PTDNet
0.5035 ±0.0193
This paper
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