Frameless Graph Knowledge Distillation

Dai Shi, Zhiqi Shao, Junbin Gao, Zhiyong Wang, Yi Guo

Main figure for Frameless Graph Knowledge Distillation

Abstract

Knowledge distillation (KD) has shown great potential for transferring knowledge from a complex teacher model to a simple student model in which the heavy learning task can be accomplished efficiently and without losing too much prediction accuracy. Recently, many attempts have been made by applying the KD mechanism to the graph representation learning models such as graph neural networks (GNNs) to accelerate the model's inference speed via student models. However, many existing KD-based GNNs utilize MLP as a universal approximator in the student model to imitate the teacher model's process without considering the graph knowledge from the teacher model. In this work, we provide a KD-based framework on multi-scaled GNNs, known as graph framelet, and prove that by adequately utilizing the graph knowledge in a multi-scaled manner provided by graph framelet decomposition, the student model is capable of adapting both homophilic and heterophilic graphs and has the potential of alleviating the over-squashing issue with a simple yet effectively graph surgery. Furthermore, we show how the graph knowledge supplied by the teacher is learned and digested by the student model via both algebra and geometry. Comprehensive experiments show that our proposed model can generate learning accuracy identical to or even surpass the teacher model while maintaining the high speed of inference.

Proposed method: MLP

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
0.9004
332
FMLP-O
0.8370 ±0.0053
This paper
348
GLNN
actual #348 vs paper #348
0.8360 ±0.0022
actual #348 vs paper #348
paper 0.8360 ±0.0022
paper 0.8360 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0306
372
SpatUFG
0.8350 ±0.0045
This paper
386
FMLP-S
0.8340 ±0.0011
This paper
430
MLP^S
0.8300 ±0.0048
This paper
436
SUFG
0.8290 ±0.0026
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #879 155 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #879 155 places worse
paper 0.5920 ±0.0134
paper 0.5920 ±0.0134 Δ at pub 0.1555 Δ today 0.1848
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
202
FMLP-O
0.7450 ±0.0071
This paper
211
FMLP-S
0.7430 ±0.0015
This paper
228
SpatUFG
0.7400 ±0.0036
This paper
229
GLNN
actual #229 vs paper #229
0.7400 ±0.0002
actual #229 vs paper #229
paper 0.7400 ±0.0002

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7400 ±0.0002 Δ at pub 0.0223
241
SUFG
0.7380 ±0.0073
This paper
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #833 483 places worse
0.7289 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #350 vs paper #833 483 places worse
paper 0.5960 ±0.0297
paper 0.5960 ±0.0297 Δ at pub 0.0998 Δ today 0.1329
355
MLP^S
0.7280 ±0.0122
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #853 643 places worse
0.8690 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #853 643 places worse
paper 0.6760 ±0.0232
paper 0.6760 ±0.0232 Δ at pub 0.1878 Δ today 0.1930
428
GLNN
actual #428 vs paper #487 59 places worse
0.7960 ±0.0014
actual #428 vs paper #487 59 places worse
paper 0.7960 ±0.0014
461
FMLP-O
0.7990 ±0.0097
This paper
526
SpatUFG
0.7940 ±0.0064
This paper
588
SUFG
0.7900 ±0.0027
This paper
589
FMLP-S
0.7900 ±0.0018
This paper
795
MLP^S
0.7520 ±0.0051
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
104
GLNN
actual #104 vs paper #511 407 places worse
0.9390 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #511 407 places worse
paper 0.8450 ±0.0187
paper 0.8450 ±0.0187 Δ today 0.0940
390
MLP
actual #390 vs paper #558 168 places worse
0.9128 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #558 168 places worse
paper 0.6960 ±0.0392
paper 0.6960 ±0.0392 Δ at pub 0.2168
440
FMLP-O
0.9020 ±0.0074
This paper
453
FMLP-S
0.8990 ±0.0032
This paper
472
SpatUFG
0.8920 ±0.0041
This paper
476
SUFG
0.8900 ±0.0114
This paper
543
MLP^S
0.7790 ±0.0138
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
236
GLNN
actual #236 vs paper #389 153 places worse
0.8750 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #236 vs paper #389 153 places worse
paper 0.8260 ±0.0134
paper 0.8260 ±0.0134 Δ at pub 0.0043 Δ today 0.0490
320
MLP
actual #320 vs paper #493 173 places worse
0.8463
best reported
actual #320 vs paper #493 173 places worse
paper 0.4490 ±0.0088
347
FMLP-O
0.8410 ±0.0075
This paper
363
SpatUFG
0.8360 ±0.0016
This paper
408
SUFG
0.8190 ±0.0085
This paper
412
FMLP-S
0.8160 ±0.0082
This paper
473
MLP^S
0.7020 ±0.0067
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GrokFormer
0.9831 ±0.0018
2
PolyFormer
0.9808 ±0.0027
3
SGFormer
0.9796 ±0.0081
9
GCN
0.9774 ±0.0035
58
MLP
actual #58 vs paper #274 216 places worse
0.9597 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #274 216 places worse
paper 0.8890 ±0.0114
paper 0.8890 ±0.0114 Δ at pub 0.0673 Δ today 0.0707
194
FMLP-O
0.9410 ±0.0042
This paper
219
SpatUFG
0.9340 ±0.0123
This paper
230
FMLP-S
0.9320 ±0.0037
This paper
246
SUFG
0.9280 ±0.0062
This paper
264
GLNN
0.9160 ±0.0049
This paper
279
MLP^S
0.7600 ±0.0225
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
9
SpatUFG
0.4250 ±0.0019
This paper
10
FMLP-O
0.4250 ±0.0011
This paper
31
FMLP-S
0.4130 ±0.0024
This paper
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #79 37 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #79 37 places worse
paper 0.3850 ±0.0025
paper 0.3850 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0176
48
SUFG
0.4010 ±0.0020
This paper
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
105
GLNN
0.3780 ±0.0047
This paper
152
MLP^S
0.3670 ±0.0112
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