Label Deconvolution for Node Representation Learning on Large-scale Attributed Graphs against Learning Bias

Zhihao Shi, Jie Wang, Fanghua Lu, Hanzhu Chen, Defu Lian, Zheng Wang, Jieping Ye, Feng Wu

Main figure for Label Deconvolution for Node Representation Learning on Large-scale Attributed Graphs against Learning Bias

Abstract

Node representation learning on attributed graphs---whose nodes are associated with rich attributes (e.g., texts and protein sequences)---plays a crucial role in many important downstream tasks. To encode the attributes and graph structures simultaneously, recent studies integrate pre-trained models with graph neural networks (GNNs), where pre-trained models serve as node encoders (NEs) to encode the attributes. As jointly training large NEs and GNNs on large-scale graphs suffers from severe scalability issues, many methods propose to train NEs and GNNs separately. Consequently, they do not take feature convolutions in GNNs into consideration in the training phase of NEs, leading to a significant learning bias relative to the joint training. To address this challenge, we propose an efficient label regularization technique, namely Label Deconvolution (LD), to alleviate the learning bias by a novel and highly scalable approximation to the inverse mapping of GNNs. The inverse mapping leads to an objective function that is equivalent to that by the joint training, while it can effectively incorporate GNNs in the training phase of NEs against the learning bias. More importantly, we show that LD converges to the optimal objective function values by the joint training under mild assumptions. Experiments demonstrate LD significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on Open Graph Benchmark datasets.

Proposed method: LD

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
14
SAGN
actual #14 vs paper #17 3 places worse
0.8736 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #17 3 places worse
paper 0.8718 ±0.0004
paper 0.8718 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0018
24
LD
0.8645 ±0.0012
This paper
42
X_GLEM
0.8509 ±0.0021
This paper
54
X_PNE
0.8451 ±0.0005
This paper
65
GAMLP
actual #65 vs paper #71 6 places worse
0.8376 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #71 6 places worse
paper 0.8354 ±0.0009

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8354 ±0.0009 Δ at pub 0.0022 Δ today 0.0022
75
X_GIANT
0.8316 ±0.0007
This paper
82
X_FNE
0.8288 ±0.0005
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
LD
0.8942 ±0.0007
This paper
2
X_WO/LD
0.8915 ±0.0012
This paper
3
X_PNE
0.8894 ±0.0014
This paper
4
X_GLEM
0.8872
This paper
5
X_FNE
0.8866 ±0.0008
This paper
16
GraphSAGE
0.8430
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)