Structure-Aware DropEdge Towards Deep Graph Convolutional Networks

Jiaqi Han, Wen-bing Huang, Yu Rong, Tingyang Xu, Fuchun Sun, Junzhou Huang

Main figure for Structure-Aware DropEdge Towards Deep Graph Convolutional Networks

Abstract

It has been discovered that Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) encounter a remarkable drop in performance when multiple layers are piled up. The main factor that accounts for why deep GCNs fail lies in over-smoothing, which isolates the network output from the input with the increase of network depth, weakening expressivity and trainability. In this paper, we start by investigating refined measures upon DropEdge---an existing simple yet effective technique to relieve over-smoothing. We term our method as DropEdge++ for its two structure-aware samplers in contrast to DropEdge: layer-dependent sampler and feature-dependent sampler. Regarding the layer-dependent sampler, we interestingly find that increasingly sampling edges from the bottom layer yields superior performance than the decreasing counterpart as well as DropEdge. We theoretically reveal this phenomenon with Mean-Edge-Number (MEN), a metric closely related to over-smoothing. For the feature-dependent sampler, we associate the edge sampling probability with the feature similarity of node pairs, and prove that it further correlates the convergence subspace of the output layer with the input features. Extensive experiments on several node classification benchmarks, including both full- and semi- supervised tasks, illustrate the efficacy of DropEdge++ and its compatibility with a variety of backbones by achieving generally better performance over DropEdge and the no-drop version.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #456 454 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #456 454 places worse
paper 0.8970
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #378 357 places worse
0.9573 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #378 357 places worse
paper 0.9142
87
GCNII
actual #87 vs paper #401 314 places worse
0.9105
actual #87 vs paper #401 314 places worse
paper 0.9105
321
GCN w DE+
0.9222 ±0.0042
This paper
364
JKNet
actual #364 vs paper #364
0.9169
actual #364 vs paper #364
paper 0.9169
paper 0.9169 Δ at pub 0.0399
368
GCN(Drop)
0.9158
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
6
GAT
actual #6 vs paper #269 263 places worse
0.9782 ±0.0028
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #269 263 places worse
paper 0.9110
paper 0.9110 Δ at pub 0.0553 Δ today 0.0672
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
42
APPNP
actual #42 vs paper #219 177 places worse
0.9654 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #219 177 places worse
paper 0.9332
59
GCNII
actual #59 vs paper #218 159 places worse
0.9597 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #59 vs paper #218 159 places worse
paper 0.9343
58
MLP
0.9597 ±0.0007
178
GCN w DE+
0.9445 ±0.0010
This paper
227
JKNet
actual #227 vs paper #245 18 places worse
0.9325 ±0.0082
best reported
actual #227 vs paper #245 18 places worse
paper 0.9294

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9294 Δ at pub 0.0031
228
GCN(Drop)
0.9323
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere