ICML 2023

Graph Mixup with Soft Alignments

Hongyi Ling, Zhimeng Jiang, Meng Liu, Shuiwang Ji, Na Zou

Main figure for Graph Mixup with Soft Alignments

Abstract

We study graph data augmentation by mixup, which has been used successfully on images. A key operation of mixup is to compute a convex combination of a pair of inputs. This operation is straightforward for grid-like data, such as images, but challenging for graph data. The key difficulty lies in the fact that different graphs typically have different numbers of nodes, and thus there lacks a node-level correspondence between graphs. In this work, we propose S-Mixup, a simple yet effective mixup method for graph classification by soft alignments. Specifically, given a pair of graphs, we explicitly obtain node-level correspondence via computing a soft assignment matrix to match the nodes between two graphs. Based on the soft assignments, we transform the adjacency and node feature matrices of one graph, so that the transformed graph is aligned with the other graph. In this way, any pair of graphs can be mixed directly to generate an augmented graph. We conduct systematic experiments to show that S-Mixup can improve the performance and generalization of graph neural networks (GNNs) on various graph classification tasks. In addition, we show that S-Mixup can increase the robustness of GNNs against noisy labels.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets SOTA at publication on 2

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
312
G-Mixup
actual #312 vs paper #312
0.7820 ±0.0158
actual #312 vs paper #312
paper 0.7820 ±0.0158
paper 0.7820 ±0.0158 Δ at pub 0.0960
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSNN
0.7790 ±0.0360
2
SIN
0.7560 ±0.0320
3
CIN
0.7560 ±0.0370
5
GIN
0.7510 ±0.0510
49
S-Mixup
0.5073 ±0.0366
This paper
54
G-Mixup
0.5033 ±0.0367
This paper
59
DropNode
0.5000 ±0.0485
This paper
63
subgraph
0.4980 ±0.0343
This paper
64
SubMix
0.4980 ±0.0401
This paper
66
M-Mixup
0.4973 ±0.0267
This paper
71
Vanilla
0.4947 ±0.0260
This paper
79
DropEdge
0.4900 ±0.0294
This paper

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
96
S-Mixup
0.7809 ±0.0089
This paper
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
127
M-Mixup
actual #127 vs paper #127
0.7742 ±0.0077
actual #127 vs paper #127
paper 0.7742 ±0.0077
paper 0.7742 ±0.0077 Δ at pub 0.0212
128
G-Mixup
actual #128 vs paper #128
0.7742 ±0.0145
actual #128 vs paper #128
paper 0.7742 ±0.0145

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7742 ±0.0145 Δ at pub 0.0032
163
Vanilla
0.7684 ±0.0054
This paper
188
DropEdge
actual #188 vs paper #236 48 places worse
0.7620 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #188 vs paper #236 48 places worse
paper 0.7509 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7509 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0111
200
DropNode
actual #200 vs paper #240 40 places worse
0.7604 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #200 vs paper #240 40 places worse
paper 0.7496 ±0.0137

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7496 ±0.0137 Δ today 0.0108
290
SubMix
0.6994 ±0.0048
This paper
292
subgraph
0.6945 ±0.0168
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 value improved over the best known when published