NeurIPS 2023

Fused Gromov-Wasserstein Graph Mixup for Graph-level Classifications

Xinyu Ma, Xu Chu, Yasha Wang, Yang Lin, Junfeng Zhao, Liantao Ma, Wenwu Zhu

Main figure for Fused Gromov-Wasserstein Graph Mixup for Graph-level Classifications

Abstract

Graph data augmentation has shown superiority in enhancing generalizability and robustness of GNNs in graph-level classifications. However, existing methods primarily focus on the augmentation in the graph signal space and the graph structure space independently, neglecting the joint interaction between them. In this paper, we address this limitation by formulating the problem as an optimal transport problem that aims to find an optimal inter-graph node matching strategy considering the interactions between graph structures and signals. To solve this problem, we propose a novel graph mixup algorithm called FGWMixup, which seeks a "midpoint" of source graphs in the Fused Gromov-Wasserstein (FGW) metric space. To enhance the scalability of our method, we introduce a relaxed FGW solver that accelerates FGWMixup by improving the convergence rate from $ (t^-1)$ to $ (t^-2)$. Extensive experiments conducted on five datasets using both classic (MPNNs) and advanced (Graphormers) GNN backbones demonstrate that FGWMixup effectively improves the generalizability and robustness of GNNs. Codes are available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets

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
41
ifMixup
actual #41 vs paper #343 302 places worse
0.8390 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #41 vs paper #343 302 places worse
paper 0.7737 ±0.0256
paper 0.7737 ±0.0256 Δ at pub 0.0653
111
DropNode
actual #111 vs paper #341 230 places worse
0.8240
best reported
actual #111 vs paper #341 230 places worse
paper 0.7742 ±0.0171
paper 0.7742 ±0.0171 Δ at pub 0.0498
117
DropEdge
actual #117 vs paper #374 257 places worse
0.8230 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #117 vs paper #374 257 places worse
paper 0.7647 ±0.0285
paper 0.7647 ±0.0285 Δ at pub 0.0583
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
154
Graphormer
actual #154 vs paper #544 390 places worse
0.8144 ±0.0057
best reported
actual #154 vs paper #544 390 places worse
paper 0.6156 ±0.0370
paper 0.6156 ±0.0370 Δ today 0.1988
213
M-Mixup
actual #213 vs paper #329 116 places worse
0.8030 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #329 116 places worse
paper 0.7776 ±0.0275
paper 0.7776 ±0.0275 Δ at pub 0.0254
297
FGWMixup*
0.7847 ±0.0174
This paper
298
vGCN-FGWMixup_*
0.7847 ±0.0174
This paper
305
vGIN-FGWMixup
0.7832 ±0.0265
This paper
312
G-Mixup
actual #312 vs paper #329 17 places worse
0.7820 ±0.0158
best reported
actual #312 vs paper #329 17 places worse
paper 0.7779 ±0.0188
best at pub: Graph Mixup with Soft Alignments (ICML 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7779 ±0.0188 Δ at pub 0.0041
313
G-Mixup+FGW
0.7818 ±0.0173
This paper
339
GraphormerGD
0.7749 ±0.0201
This paper
366
Vanilla
0.7698 ±0.0187
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
77
FGWMixup
0.7718 ±0.0348
This paper
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
174
G-Mixup
actual #174 vs paper #174
0.7574 ±0.0312
actual #174 vs paper #174
paper 0.7574 ±0.0312
paper 0.7574 ±0.0312 Δ at pub 0.0424
180
M-Mixup
actual #180 vs paper #180
0.7565 ±0.0451
actual #180 vs paper #180
paper 0.7565 ±0.0451
paper 0.7565 ±0.0451 Δ at pub 0.0505
193
DropEdge
actual #193 vs paper #293 100 places worse
0.7550 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #193 vs paper #293 100 places worse
paper 0.7448 ±0.0418

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7448 ±0.0418 Δ at pub 0.0102
216
ifMixup
actual #216 vs paper #275 59 places worse
0.7530 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #216 vs paper #275 59 places worse
paper 0.7476 ±0.0371

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7476 ±0.0371 Δ at pub 0.0054
234
DropNode
actual #234 vs paper #234
0.7511 ±0.0300
actual #234 vs paper #234
paper 0.7511 ±0.0300

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7511 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0001
258
Vanilla
0.7493 ±0.0302
This paper

OGB

ogbg-molhiv

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ROC-AUC (AUROC, percent form); the dataset default is ROC-AUC. Values below use ROC-AUC (AUROC, percent form) only.

Sorted by ROC-AUC (AUROC, percent form). Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC (AUROC, percent form) ↑Paper
1
FGWMixup
0.7524 ±0.0278
This paper
2
G-Mixup
0.7465 ±0.0142
This paper
3
DropEdge
0.7407 ±0.0268
This paper
4
Vanilla
0.7372 ±0.0245
This paper

ogbg-molpcba

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ROC-AUC; the dataset default is AP. Values below use ROC-AUC only.

Sorted by ROC-AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
PrunE
0.8159 ±0.0535
2
EGTAS
0.7919 ±0.0137
3
UGTs
0.7840
5
FGWMixup
0.7749 ±0.0271
This paper
7
Vanilla
0.7662 ±0.0459
This paper
9
DropEdge
0.7531 ±0.0457
This paper
10
G-Mixup
0.7374 ±0.0707
This paper
12
GIN
0.7042 ±0.0478
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