ICLR 2023

Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs

Federico Barbero, A. Velingker, Amin Saberi, Michael M. Bronstein, Francesco Di Giovanni

Main figure for Locality-Aware Graph Rewiring in GNNs

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are popular models for machine learning on graphs that typically follow the message-passing paradigm, whereby the feature of a node is updated recursively upon aggregating information over its neighbors. While exchanging messages over the input graph endows GNNs with a strong inductive bias, it can also make GNNs susceptible to over-squashing, thereby preventing them from capturing long-range interactions in the given graph. To rectify this issue, graph rewiring techniques have been proposed as a means of improving information flow by altering the graph connectivity. In this work, we identify three desiderata for graph-rewiring: (i) reduce over-squashing, (ii) respect the locality of the graph, and (iii) preserve the sparsity of the graph. We highlight fundamental trade-offs that occur between spatial and spectral rewiring techniques; while the former often satisfy (i) and (ii) but not (iii), the latter generally satisfy (i) and (iii) at the expense of (ii). We propose a novel rewiring framework that satisfies all of (i)--(iii) through a locality-aware sequence of rewiring operations. We then discuss a specific instance of such rewiring framework and validate its effectiveness on several real-world benchmarks, showing that it either matches or significantly outperforms existing rewiring approaches.

Proposed method: LASER

Benchmark Results

Tested on 8 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
562
LASER
0.8220 ±0.0673
This paper
577
BORF
actual #577 vs paper #577
0.8168 ±0.0796
actual #577 vs paper #577
paper 0.8168 ±0.0796

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8168 ±0.0796 Δ at pub 0.0088
603
DiffWire
0.8042 ±0.0971
This paper
605
FoSR
actual #605 vs paper #699 94 places worse
0.7590 ±0.0721
actual #605 vs paper #699 94 places worse
paper 0.7590 ±0.0721

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7590 ±0.0721 Δ at pub 0.0030
633
SDRF
actual #633 vs paper #720 87 places worse
0.7950 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #633 vs paper #720 87 places worse
paper 0.7453 ±0.0536

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7453 ±0.0536 Δ at pub 0.0277 Δ today 0.0497
646
GTR
actual #646 vs paper #652 6 places worse
0.7900 ±0.0140
best reported
actual #646 vs paper #652 6 places worse
paper 0.7863 ±0.0620

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7863 ±0.0620 Δ today 0.0037
691
None
actual #691 vs paper #719 28 places worse
0.7610 ±0.0310
best reported
actual #691 vs paper #719 28 places worse
paper 0.7474 ±0.0595

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7474 ±0.0595 Δ at pub 0.0076 Δ today 0.0136
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
0.8260 ±0.0220
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
213
FoSR
actual #213 vs paper #303 90 places worse
0.7681 ±0.0045
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #303 90 places worse
paper 0.6985 ±0.0348
paper 0.6985 ±0.0348 Δ at pub 0.0696
220
SDRF
actual #220 vs paper #300 80 places worse
0.7648 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #220 vs paper #300 80 places worse
paper 0.7022 ±0.0257
paper 0.7022 ±0.0257 Δ at pub 0.0626
240
None
actual #240 vs paper #307 67 places worse
0.7554 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #240 vs paper #307 67 places worse
paper 0.6896 ±0.0228
paper 0.6896 ±0.0228 Δ at pub 0.0658
286
LASER
actual #286 vs paper #293 7 places worse
0.7188 ±0.0057
best reported
actual #286 vs paper #293 7 places worse
paper 0.7092 ±0.0254

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7092 ±0.0254 Δ today 0.0096
311
GTR
0.6802 ±0.0230
This paper
318
DiffWire
0.6544 ±0.0218
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
170
FoSR
actual #170 vs paper #236 66 places worse
0.4555 ±0.0126
best reported
actual #170 vs paper #236 66 places worse
paper 0.2860 ±0.0525
paper 0.2860 ±0.0525 Δ at pub 0.1695
189
SDRF
actual #189 vs paper #230 41 places worse
0.3958 ±0.0133
best reported
actual #189 vs paper #230 41 places worse
paper 0.3057 ±0.0619

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3057 ±0.0619 Δ at pub 0.0902
191
None
actual #191 vs paper #236 45 places worse
0.3902 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #236 45 places worse
paper 0.2873 ±0.0530
paper 0.2873 ±0.0530 Δ at pub 0.1028
206
BORF
actual #206 vs paper #230 24 places worse
0.3550 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #230 24 places worse
paper 0.3050 ±0.0659

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3050 ±0.0659 Δ at pub 0.0500
209
LASER
actual #209 vs paper #213 4 places worse
0.3530 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #209 vs paper #213 4 places worse
paper 0.3433 ±0.0694

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3433 ±0.0694 Δ today 0.0097
237
DiffWire
0.2853 ±0.0447
This paper
238
GTR
actual #238 vs paper #249 11 places worse
0.2840 ±0.0180
best reported
actual #238 vs paper #249 11 places worse
paper 0.2633 ±0.0582

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2633 ±0.0582 Δ today 0.0207
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
ID-GNN+BEC
0.8150 ±0.0240
2
GIN+BEC
0.8080 ±0.0330
3
GCN+BEC
0.7990 ±0.0340
4
GCN
0.7980 ±0.0230
112
FoSR
actual #112 vs paper #151 39 places worse
0.7181 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #112 vs paper #151 39 places worse
paper 0.6040 ±0.0585
paper 0.6040 ±0.0585 Δ at pub 0.1141
135
SDRF
actual #135 vs paper #152 17 places worse
0.7021 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #152 17 places worse
paper 0.5829 ±0.0320
paper 0.5829 ±0.0320 Δ at pub 0.1192
136
None
actual #136 vs paper #148 12 places worse
0.7018 ±0.0099
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #148 12 places worse
paper 0.6428 ±0.0199
paper 0.6428 ±0.0199 Δ at pub 0.0590
148
LASER
0.6433 ±0.0330
This paper
151
BORF
0.6082 ±0.0388
This paper
152
DiffWire
0.5900 ±0.0385
This paper
156
GTR
0.5256 ±0.0410
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GIN-0
0.9240 ±0.0250
2
GIN-ε
0.9220 ±0.0230
3
DMoN
0.9100 ±0.0100
19
LASER
actual #19 vs paper #32 13 places worse
0.8813 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #32 13 places worse
paper 0.8546 ±0.0283

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8546 ±0.0283 Δ today 0.0267
30
FoSR
0.8593 ±0.0279
This paper
31
GTR
0.8570 ±0.0279
This paper
35
BORF
0.8492 ±0.0253
This paper
37
SDRF
0.8442 ±0.0278
This paper
40
None
0.8100 ±0.0272
This paper
49
GCN
0.5653 ±0.0260

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
0.2421 ±0.0016
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
0.2429 ±0.0019
172
LASER
0.3043 ±0.0019
This paper
173
FoSR
0.3078 ±0.0026
This paper
180
BORF
0.3374 ±0.0011
This paper
181
SDRF
0.3404 ±0.0015
This paper
184
None
0.3496 ±0.0013
This paper
187
GTR
0.3618 ±0.0010
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
0.7261 ±0.0011
111
LASER
0.6440 ±0.0010
This paper
138
BORF
0.6012 ±0.0031
This paper
141
SDRF
0.5947 ±0.0035
This paper
142
FoSR
0.5947 ±0.0027
This paper
143
None
0.5930 ±0.0023
This paper
173
GTR
0.5075 ±0.0029
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021
#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.6143
2
Exphormer
0.4737 ±0.0024
3
Exphormer + LapPE
0.4737 ±0.0024
8
GatedGCN
0.4670 ±0.0004
16
GIN
0.4617 ±0.0005
69
LASER
0.3275 ±0.0011
This paper
74
SDRF
0.3249 ±0.0006
This paper
77
None
0.3234 ±0.0006
This paper
86
GTR
0.3007 ±0.0022
This paper
87
FoSR
0.2783 ±0.0008
This paper
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)