ICLR 2023

From Latent Graph to Latent Topology Inference: Differentiable Cell Complex Module

C. Battiloro, Indro Spinelli, L. Telyatnikov, Michael M. Bronstein, Simone Scardapane, P. Lorenzo

Main figure for From Latent Graph to Latent Topology Inference: Differentiable Cell Complex Module

Abstract

Latent Graph Inference (LGI) relaxed the reliance of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) on a given graph topology by dynamically learning it. However, most of LGI methods assume to have a (noisy, incomplete, improvable,...) input graph to rewire and can solely learn regular graph topologies. In the wake of the success of Topological Deep Learning (TDL), we study Latent Topology Inference (LTI) for learning higher-order cell complexes (with sparse and not regular topology) describing multi-way interactions between data points. To this aim, we introduce the Differentiable Cell Complex Module (DCM), a novel learnable function that computes cell probabilities in the complex to improve the downstream task. We show how to integrate DCM with cell complex message passing networks layers and train it in a end-to-end fashion, thanks to a two-step inference procedure that avoids an exhaustive search across all possible cells in the input, thus maintaining scalability. Our model is tested on several homophilic and heterophilic graph datasets and it is shown to outperform other state-of-the-art techniques, offering significant improvements especially in cases where an input graph is not provided.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #114 105 places worse
0.9774 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #114 105 places worse
paper 0.9551 ±0.0034
paper 0.9551 ±0.0034 Δ at pub 0.0099 Δ today 0.0223
17
SAGE
0.9739 ±0.0018
33
DCM
0.9699 ±0.0044
This paper
49
DGM-M
0.9621 ±0.0044
This paper
58
MLP
actual #58 vs paper #161 103 places worse
0.9597 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #161 103 places worse
paper 0.9491 ±0.0028
60
DGM-E
0.9596 ±0.0040
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere