TMLR 2023

On the Equivalence of Graph Convolution and Mixup

Xiaotian Han, Hanqing Zeng, Yu Chen, Shaoliang Nie, Jingzhou Liu, Kanika Narang, Zahra Shakeri, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman, Song Jiang, Madian Khabsa, Qifan Wang, Xia Hu

Main figure for On the Equivalence of Graph Convolution and Mixup

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between graph convolution and Mixup techniques. Graph convolution in a graph neural network involves aggregating features from neighboring samples to learn representative features for a specific node or sample. On the other hand, Mixup is a data augmentation technique that generates new examples by averaging features and one-hot labels from multiple samples. One commonality between these techniques is their utilization of information from multiple samples to derive feature representation. This study aims to explore whether a connection exists between the two. Our investigation reveals that, under two mild modifications, graph convolution can be viewed as a specialized form of Mixup that is applied during both the training and testing phases. The two modifications are 1) Homophily Relabel - assigning the target node's label to all its neighbors, and 2) Test-Time Mixup - Mixup the feature during the test time. We establish this equivalence mathematically by demonstrating that graph convolution networks and simplified graph convolution can be expressed as a form of Mixup. We also empirically verify the equivalence by training an MLP using the two modifications to achieve comparable performance.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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
actual #21 vs paper #92 71 places worse
0.8804 ±0.0126
actual #21 vs paper #92 71 places worse
paper 0.8804 ±0.0126

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8804 ±0.0126 Δ at pub 0.0026
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
69
GAT-alike
0.8842
This paper
78
TMLP
0.8826 ±0.0160
This paper
173
HMLP
0.8642 ±0.0178
This paper
320
PPNP
0.8380
This paper
724
MLP
actual #724 vs paper #791 67 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #724 vs paper #791 67 places worse
paper 0.7357 ±0.0098
paper 0.7357 ±0.0098 Δ at pub 0.0118 Δ today 0.0411
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #150 106 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #150 106 places worse
paper 0.7569 ±0.0136
paper 0.7569 ±0.0136 Δ at pub 0.0374 Δ today 0.0464
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
139
HMLP
0.7594 ±0.0154
This paper
350
MLP
actual #350 vs paper #463 113 places worse
0.7190 ±0.0169
actual #350 vs paper #463 113 places worse
paper 0.7190 ±0.0169

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7190 ±0.0169 Δ at pub 0.0232
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #159 141 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #159 141 places worse
paper 0.8794 ±0.0064
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
140
HMLP
0.8834 ±0.0048
This paper
210
MLP
actual #210 vs paper #210
0.8690 ±0.0074
actual #210 vs paper #210
paper 0.8690 ±0.0074

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8690 ±0.0074 Δ at pub 0.0052
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere