Shared Growth of Graph Neural Networks via Prompted Free-direction Knowledge Distillation

Kaituo Feng, Yikun Miao, Changsheng Li, Ye Yuan, Guoren Wang

Main figure for Shared Growth of Graph Neural Networks via Prompted Free-direction Knowledge Distillation

Abstract

Knowledge distillation (KD) has shown to be effective to boost the performance of graph neural networks (GNNs), where the typical objective is to distill knowledge from a deeper teacher GNN into a shallower student GNN. However, it is often quite challenging to train a satisfactory deeper GNN due to the well-known over-parametrized and over-smoothing issues, leading to invalid knowledge transfer in practical applications. In this paper, we propose the first Free-direction Knowledge Distillation framework via reinforcement learning for GNNs, called FreeKD, which is no longer required to provide a deeper well-optimized teacher GNN. Our core idea is to collaboratively learn two shallower GNNs in an effort to exchange knowledge between them via reinforcement learning in a hierarchical way. As we observe that one typical GNN model often exhibits better and worse performances at different nodes during training, we devise a dynamic and free-direction knowledge transfer strategy that involves two levels of actions: 1) node-level action determines the directions of knowledge transfer between the corresponding nodes of two networks; and then 2) structure-level action determines which of the local structures generated by the node-level actions to be propagated. Additionally, considering that different augmented graphs can potentially capture distinct perspectives or representations of the graph data, we propose FreeKD-Prompt that learns undistorted and diverse augmentations based on prompt learning for exchanging varied knowledge. Furthermore, instead of confining knowledge exchange within two GNNs, we develop FreeKD++ and FreeKD-Prompt++ to enable free-direction knowledge transfer among multiple shallow GNNs. Extensive experiments on five benchmark datasets demonstrate our approaches outperform the base GNNs in a large margin, and shows their efficacy to various GNNs. More surprisingly, our FreeKD has comparable or even better performance than traditional KD algorithms that distill knowledge from a deeper and stronger teacher GNN.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 4 datasets

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

Classic

Cora

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 only.

Sorted by F1. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
ACM-GCN
0.8894 ±0.0054
2
APPNP
0.8880 ±0.0010
3
GraphSAGE
0.8810 ±0.0010
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #15 9 places worse
0.8790 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #15 9 places worse
paper 0.8512
paper 0.8512 Δ at pub 0.0278
10
FreeKD-Prompt (GAT/GAT)
0.8744
This paper
11
GAT
actual #11 vs paper #13 2 places worse
0.8670 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #13 2 places worse
paper 0.8545
paper 0.8545 Δ at pub 0.0125
14
GIN
0.8537 ±0.0074
15
SAGE
actual #15 vs paper #15
0.8536
actual #15 vs paper #15
paper 0.8536
prev best: Graph Unlearning (2021)
paper 0.8536 Δ at pub 0.0296
43
MLP
0.6570 ±0.0190

CiteSeer

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1 Score; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 Score only.

Sorted by F1 Score. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 Score ↑Paper
1
FreeKD-Prompt (GCN/SAGE)
0.7868
This paper
2
Teacher GCNII
0.7860
This paper
3
CPF
0.7780
This paper
4
FreeKD
0.7778
This paper
5
G-CRD
0.7762
This paper
6
LSP
0.7721
This paper
7
KD
0.7703
This paper
8
SAGE
0.7656
This paper
9
RDD
0.7602
This paper
10
GNN-SD
0.7596
This paper
11
GAT
0.7566
This paper
12
GCN
0.7542
This paper
#ModelF1 ↑Paper
1
GAMLP(JK)
0.9982 ±0.0001
2
GraphCON-GCN
0.9960
3
GCNII
0.9953 ±0.0001
14
FreeKD-Prompt (GAT/GAT)
0.9896
This paper
16
FreeKD
0.9879
This paper
21
GCN
0.9850
57
GAT
actual #57 vs paper #57
0.9732 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #57 vs paper #57
paper 0.9730

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9730 Δ at pub 0.0002
132
SAGE
0.6928
This paper
173
MLP
0.4620

Heterophilic Graphs

Texas

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1 Score; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 Score only.

Sorted by F1 Score. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 Score ↑Paper
1
FreeKD-Prompt (SAGE-SAGE)
0.8108
This paper
2
FreeKD
0.7784
This paper
3
SAGE
0.7622
This paper
4
CPF
0.6081
This paper
5
G-CRD
0.6054
This paper
6
LSP
0.5973
This paper
7
KD
0.5946
This paper
8
RDD
0.5892
This paper
9
GNN-SD
0.5865
This paper
10
GAT
0.5784
This paper
11
GCN
0.5757
This paper

Chameleon

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports F1 Score; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use F1 Score only.

Sorted by F1 Score. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelF1 Score ↑Paper
1
FreeKD-Prompt
0.5050
This paper
2
FreeKD
0.4993
This paper
3
SAGE
0.4877
This paper
4
LSP
0.4404
This paper
5
G-CRD
0.4377
This paper
6
KD
0.4364
This paper
7
CPF
0.4219
This paper
8
RDD
0.4173
This paper
9
GNN-SD
0.4092
This paper
10
GAT
0.4029
This paper
11
GCN
0.3309
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published