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
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphTARIF | 0.9703
±0.0019 | |
| 2 | GAT | 0.9669
±0.0014 best reported | best at pub: Clarify Confused Nodes via Separated Learning (2023) |
| 3 | GAT+T | 0.9660
±0.0007 | |
| 7 | SAGE | 0.9643
±0.0027 | |
| 21 | APPNP | 0.9573
±0.0012 best reported | |
| 87 | GCNII | 0.9105 | best today: Polynormer: Polynomial-Expressive Graph Transformer in Linear Time (ICLR 2024) |
| 321 | GCN w DE+ | 0.9222
±0.0042 | This paper |
| 364 | JKNet | 0.9169 | prev best: Learned Low Precision Graph Neural Networks (2020) |
| 368 | GCN(Drop) | 0.9158 | This paper |
| 390 | MLP | 0.9128
±0.0063 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GrokFormer | 0.9831
±0.0018 | |
| 2 | PolyFormer | 0.9808
±0.0027 | |
| 3 | SGFormer | 0.9796
±0.0081 | |
| 6 | GAT | 0.9782
±0.0028 best reported | best at pub: Clarify Confused Nodes via Separated Learning (2023) best today: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) |
| 9 | GCN | 0.9774
±0.0035 | |
| 42 | APPNP | 0.9654
±0.0007 best reported | best at pub: Towards Understanding Graph Neural Networks: An Algorithm Unrolling Perspective (2022) best today: Polynormer: Polynomial-Expressive Graph Transformer in Linear Time (ICLR 2024) |
| 59 | GCNII | 0.9597
±0.0011 best reported | best at pub: Building Shortcuts between Distant Nodes with Biaffine Mapping for Graph Convolutional Networks (2023) best today: Polynormer: Polynomial-Expressive Graph Transformer in Linear Time (ICLR 2024) |
| 58 | MLP | 0.9597
±0.0007 | |
| 178 | GCN w DE+ | 0.9445
±0.0010 | This paper |
| 227 | JKNet | 0.9325
±0.0082 best reported | best at pub: Towards Understanding Graph Neural Networks: An Algorithm Unrolling Perspective (2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 228 | GCN(Drop) | 0.9323 | This paper |
