Graph Condensation for Inductive Node Representation Learning

Xin Gao, Tong Chen, Yilong Zang, Wentao Zhang, Q. Nguyen, Kai Zheng, Hongzhi Yin

Main figure for Graph Condensation for Inductive Node Representation Learning

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) encounter significant computational challenges when handling large-scale graphs, which severely restricts their efficacy across diverse applications. To address this limitation, graph condensation has emerged as a promising technique, which constructs a small synthetic graph for efficiently training GNNs while retaining performance. However, due to the topology structure among nodes, graph condensation is limited to condensing only the observed training nodes and their corresponding structure, thus lacking the ability to effectively handle the unseen data. Consequently, the original large graph is still required in the inference stage to perform message passing to inductive nodes, resulting in substantial computational demands. To overcome this issue, we propose mapping-aware graph condensation (MCond), explicitly learning the one-to-many node mapping from original nodes to synthetic nodes to seamlessly integrate new nodes into the synthetic graph for inductive representation learning. This enables direct information propagation on the synthetic graph, which is much more efficient than on the original large graph. Specifically, MCond employs an alternating optimization scheme with innovative loss terms from transductive and inductive perspectives, facilitating the mutual promotion between graph condensation and node mapping learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in inductive inference. On the Reddit dataset, MCond achieves up to $121.5 $ inference speedup and $55.9 $ reduction in storage requirements compared with counterparts based on the original graph.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

Reddit

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAP-EDP
0.9870 ±0.0003
2
NE-ASGCN
0.9758 ±0.0027
3
HSGT
0.9730 ±0.0024
21
GraphSAGE
actual #21 vs paper #132 111 places worse
0.9653 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #132 111 places worse
paper 0.8889 ±0.0021
paper 0.8889 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0764
23
SAGE
0.9650 ±0.0003
71
APPNP
actual #71 vs paper #138 67 places worse
0.9500
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #138 67 places worse
paper 0.8712 ±0.0013
paper 0.8712 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0788
78
Whole
0.9400 ±0.0002
This paper
107
MCond_OS
0.9153 ±0.0012
This paper
109
Degree
actual #109 vs paper #163 54 places worse
0.9140
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #163 54 places worse
paper 0.5587 ±0.0142
113
Random
actual #113 vs paper #163 50 places worse
0.9110
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #163 50 places worse
paper 0.5577 ±0.0176
120
GCond
actual #120 vs paper #125 5 places worse
0.8963 ±0.0025
actual #120 vs paper #125 5 places worse
paper 0.8963 ±0.0025

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8963 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0163
123
MCond_SO
0.9006 ±0.0023
This paper
133
MCond_SS
0.8877 ±0.0044
This paper
147
MLP
0.8240 ±0.0010
149
VNG
0.7942 ±0.0113
This paper
150
Cheby
0.7530 ±0.0002
This paper
153
Herding
actual #153 vs paper #163 10 places worse
0.5586 ±0.0179
actual #153 vs paper #163 10 places worse
paper 0.5586 ±0.0179
best today: Simple Graph Condensation (2024)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5586 ±0.0179 Δ at pub 0.0276 Δ today 0.1554
161
K-Center
actual #161 vs paper #163 2 places worse
0.5536 ±0.0178
actual #161 vs paper #163 2 places worse
paper 0.5536 ±0.0178
paper 0.5536 ±0.0178 Δ at pub 0.0876
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