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
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.8804
±0.0126 | prev best: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 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 | 0.7768 best reported | best at pub: From Node Interaction to Hop Interaction: New Effective and Scalable Graph Learning Paradigm (2022) best today: Understanding Heterophily for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2024) |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 | |
| 139 | HMLP | 0.7594
±0.0154 | This paper |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7190
±0.0169 | prev best: Block Modeling-Guided Graph Convolutional Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | 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 best reported | best at pub: Tackling Over-Smoothing for General Graph Convolutional Networks (2020) |
| 116 | SAGE | 0.8881
±0.0015 | |
| 140 | HMLP | 0.8834
±0.0048 | This paper |
| 210 | MLP | 0.8690
±0.0074 | prev best: Block Modeling-Guided Graph Convolutional Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
