WWW 2023

Node-wise Diffusion for Scalable Graph Learning

Keke Huang, Jing Tang, Juncheng Liu, Renchi Yang, Xiaokui Xiao

Main figure for Node-wise Diffusion for Scalable Graph Learning

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown superior performance for semi-supervised learning of numerous web applications, such as classification on web services and pages, analysis of online social networks, and recommendation in e-commerce. The state of the art derives representations for all nodes in graphs following the same diffusion (message passing) model without discriminating their uniqueness. However, (i) labeled nodes involved in model training usually account for a small portion of graphs in the semi-supervised setting, and (ii) different nodes locate at different graph local contexts and it inevitably degrades the representation qualities if treating them undistinguishedly in diffusion. To address the above issues, we develop NDM, a universal node-wise diffusion model, to capture the unique characteristics of each node in diffusion, by which NDM is able to yield high-quality node representations. In what follows, we customize NDM for semi-supervised learning and design the NIGCN model. In particular, NIGCN advances the efficiency significantly since it (i) produces representations for labeled nodes only and (ii) adopts well-designed neighbor sampling techniques tailored for node representation generation. Extensive experimental results on various types of web datasets, including citation, social and co-purchasing graphs, not only verify the state-of-the-art effectiveness of NIGCN but also strongly support the remarkable scalability of NIGCN. In particular, NIGCN completes representation generation and training within $10$ seconds on the dataset with hundreds of millions of nodes and billions of edges, up to orders of magnitude speedups over the baselines, while achieving the highest F1-scores on classification can be accessed at..

Proposed method: NIGCN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 13 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 3 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
20
APPNP
actual #20 vs paper #629 609 places worse
0.8142 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #629 609 places worse
paper 0.6983 ±0.0127
paper 0.6983 ±0.0127 Δ at pub 0.1067 Δ today 0.1159
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #642 607 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #642 607 places worse
paper 0.6935 ±0.0093
paper 0.6935 ±0.0093 Δ at pub 0.1078 Δ today 0.1145
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #648 604 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #648 604 places worse
paper 0.6911 ±0.0146
paper 0.6911 ±0.0146 Δ at pub 0.1032 Δ today 0.1122
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #703 642 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #703 642 places worse
paper 0.6741 ±0.0177
paper 0.6741 ±0.0177 Δ at pub 0.1182
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #592 496 places worse
0.7765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #96 vs paper #592 496 places worse
paper 0.7049 ±0.0129
259
SAGE
0.7361 ±0.0190
266
NDLS
actual #266 vs paper #633 367 places worse
0.7360
best reported
actual #266 vs paper #633 367 places worse
paper 0.6963 ±0.0169
paper 0.6963 ±0.0169 Δ today 0.0397
280
GDC
actual #280 vs paper #633 353 places worse
0.7340 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #280 vs paper #633 353 places worse
paper 0.6969 ±0.0142
paper 0.6969 ±0.0142 Δ at pub 0.0371
342
GBP
actual #342 vs paper #614 272 places worse
0.7290 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #614 272 places worse
paper 0.7018 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7018 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0272 Δ today 0.0272
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
517
GRAND(+)
0.7142 ±0.0189
This paper
527
NIGCN
0.7135 ±0.0082
This paper
530
PPRGo
actual #530 vs paper #655 125 places worse
0.7130 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #530 vs paper #655 125 places worse
paper 0.6892 ±0.0172

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6892 ±0.0172 Δ at pub 0.0238
589
GraphSAINT
actual #589 vs paper #701 112 places worse
0.7050 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #589 vs paper #701 112 places worse
paper 0.6751 ±0.0476

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6751 ±0.0476 Δ at pub 0.0299
718
AGP
0.6715 ±0.0204
This paper
799
shaDow-GCN
0.6354 ±0.0111
This paper

PubMed

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
MixHop
0.8910 ±0.0010
2
APPNP
actual #2 vs paper #20 18 places worse
0.8840 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #20 18 places worse
paper 0.8021 ±0.0179
paper 0.8021 ±0.0179 Δ at pub 0.0819
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #30 27 places worse
0.8750 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #30 27 places worse
paper 0.7805 ±0.0164
paper 0.7805 ±0.0164 Δ at pub 0.0945
4
GAT
actual #4 vs paper #26 22 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #26 22 places worse
paper 0.7882 ±0.0190
paper 0.7882 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0808
6
GraphSAGE
actual #6 vs paper #35 29 places worse
0.8640 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #35 29 places worse
paper 0.7692 ±0.0284
paper 0.7692 ±0.0284 Δ at pub 0.0948
18
NIGCN
0.8090 ±0.0202
This paper
20
NDLS
0.8038 ±0.0141
This paper
22
GBP
0.8009 ±0.0151
This paper
24
GRAND(+)
0.7918 ±0.0193
This paper
25
AGP
0.7897 ±0.0133
This paper
27
GraphSAINT
0.7865 ±0.0417
This paper
30
PPRGo
0.7820 ±0.0196
This paper
31
GDC
0.7767 ±0.0165
This paper
33
SAGE
0.7731 ±0.0059
38
SGC
actual #38 vs paper #38
0.7511 ±0.0127
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #38
paper 0.7411 ±0.0255

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7411 ±0.0255 Δ today 0.0100
39
shaDow-GCN
0.7179 ±0.0292
This paper
41
MLP
0.6717 ±0.0091
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
EnGCN
0.9714 ±0.0003
2
SAGN+SLE
0.9710
3
GAMLP(JK)
0.9704 ±0.0001
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
0.9660
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #118 104 places worse
paper 0.8916 ±0.0116
paper 0.8916 ±0.0116 Δ at pub 0.0744
58
GCN
0.9530 ±0.0010
73
SGC
actual #73 vs paper #110 37 places worse
0.9490
best reported
actual #73 vs paper #110 37 places worse
paper 0.9264 ±0.0102
paper 0.9264 ±0.0102 Δ at pub 0.0226 Δ today 0.0226
91
FastGCN
actual #91 vs paper #111 20 places worse
0.9370
best reported
actual #91 vs paper #111 20 places worse
paper 0.9243 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9243 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0127 Δ today 0.0127
92
PPRGo
actual #92 vs paper #121 29 places worse
0.9370
best reported
actual #92 vs paper #121 29 places worse
paper 0.7821 ±0.0307
paper 0.7821 ±0.0307 Δ at pub 0.1549
100
NIGCN
0.9342 ±0.0048
This paper
114
AGP
0.9218 ±0.0088
This paper
119
NDLS
0.8525 ±0.0124
This paper
122
GBP
actual #122 vs paper #122
0.7609 ±0.0175
actual #122 vs paper #122
paper 0.7609 ±0.0175
paper 0.7609 ±0.0175 Δ at pub 0.3689

OGB

ogbn-papers100M

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
NIGCN
0.4981 ±0.0110
This paper
2
SGC
0.4859 ±0.0177
This paper
3
AGP
0.4671 ±0.0199
This paper
4
GBP
actual #4 vs paper #4
0.4491 ±0.0123
actual #4 vs paper #4
paper 0.4491 ±0.0123
paper 0.4491 ±0.0123 Δ at pub 0.1011

Other Graph Benchmarks

Amazon2M

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
Cluster-GCN
0.9041
2
VRGCN
0.9021
3
NIGCN
0.6345 ±0.0070
This paper
4
GBP
0.6078 ±0.0104
This paper
5
PPRGo
0.6010 ±0.0117
This paper
6
AGP
0.5572 ±0.0168
This paper
7
NDLS
0.5010 ±0.0209
This paper
8
GraphSAGE
0.4771 ±0.0107
This paper
9
SGC
0.4132 ±0.0110
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