SignGT: Signed Attention-based Graph Transformer for Graph Representation Learning

Jinsong Chen, Gaichao Li, J. Hopcroft, Kun He

Main figure for SignGT: Signed Attention-based Graph Transformer for Graph Representation Learning

Abstract

The emerging graph Transformers have achieved impressive performance for graph representation learning over graph neural networks (GNNs). In this work, we regard the self-attention mechanism, the core module of graph Transformers, as a two-step aggregation operation on a fully connected graph. Due to the property of generating positive attention values, the self-attention mechanism is equal to conducting a smooth operation on all nodes, preserving the low-frequency information. However, only capturing the low-frequency information is inefficient in learning complex relations of nodes on diverse graphs, such as heterophily graphs where the high-frequency information is crucial. To this end, we propose a Signed Attention-based Graph Transformer (SignGT) to adaptively capture various frequency information from the graphs. Specifically, SignGT develops a new signed self-attention mechanism (SignSA) that produces signed attention values according to the semantic relevance of node pairs. Hence, the diverse frequency information between different node pairs could be carefully preserved. Besides, SignGT proposes a structure-aware feed-forward network (SFFN) that introduces the neighborhood bias to preserve the local topology information. In this way, SignGT could learn informative node representations from both long-range dependencies and local topology information. Extensive empirical results on both node-level and graph-level tasks indicate the superiority of SignGT against state-of-the-art graph Transformers as well as advanced GNNs.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 7 datasets 16 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #59 57 places worse
0.9498 ±0.0024
actual #2 vs paper #59 57 places worse
paper 0.9498 ±0.0024

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9498 ±0.0024 Δ at pub 0.0077 Δ today 0.0171
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #69 61 places worse
0.9476 ±0.0019
actual #8 vs paper #69 61 places worse
paper 0.9476 ±0.0019
paper 0.9476 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0082 Δ today 0.0156
18
Specformer
actual #18 vs paper #74 56 places worse
0.9580 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #74 56 places worse
paper 0.9451 ±0.0027
paper 0.9451 ±0.0027 Δ today 0.0129
24
SignGT
0.9568 ±0.0036
This paper
33
GPRGNN
actual #33 vs paper #33
0.9549 ±0.0014
actual #33 vs paper #33
paper 0.9549 ±0.0014
paper 0.9549 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0152
44
NodeFormer
0.9527 ±0.0022
This paper
48
GloGNN
actual #48 vs paper #48
0.9517 ±0.0029
actual #48 vs paper #48
paper 0.9517 ±0.0029
paper 0.9517 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0276
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #50
0.9511 ±0.0009
actual #50 vs paper #50
paper 0.9511 ±0.0009
paper 0.9511 ±0.0009 Δ at pub 0.0351
66
FAGCN
actual #66 vs paper #72 6 places worse
0.9489 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #72 6 places worse
paper 0.9456 ±0.0029

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9456 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0033
80
SignGT-O
0.9444
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
569
SignGT-T
0.4094
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #138 136 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #138 136 places worse
paper 0.8953 ±0.0041
paper 0.8953 ±0.0041 Δ at pub 0.0019 Δ today 0.0459
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #60 57 places worse
0.9078 ±0.0013
actual #3 vs paper #60 57 places worse
paper 0.9078 ±0.0013
paper 0.9078 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0104 Δ today 0.0320
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
37
SignGT
0.9171 ±0.0044
This paper
48
NodeFormer
0.9112 ±0.0043
This paper
49
Specformer
actual #49 vs paper #52 3 places worse
0.9109 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #52 3 places worse
paper 0.9102 ±0.0026

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9102 ±0.0026 Δ today 0.0007
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #146 74 places worse
0.8932 ±0.0029
actual #72 vs paper #146 74 places worse
paper 0.8932 ±0.0029

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8932 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0140
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #82
0.9022 ±0.0021
actual #82 vs paper #82
paper 0.9022 ±0.0021
paper 0.9022 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0684
88
SignGT-O
0.9015
This paper
126
FAGCN
actual #126 vs paper #247 121 places worse
0.8968 ±0.0097
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #247 121 places worse
paper 0.8711 ±0.0061
paper 0.8711 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0257
152
GloGNN
actual #152 vs paper #152
0.8912 ±0.0033
actual #152 vs paper #152
paper 0.8912 ±0.0033
paper 0.8912 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0307
320
MLP
0.8463
500
SignGT-T
0.3742
This paper

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
56
SAT
actual #56 vs paper #577 521 places worse
0.9260 ±0.0430
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #577 521 places worse
paper 0.8162 ±0.0103
paper 0.8162 ±0.0103 Δ today 0.1098
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #623 560 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #623 560 places worse
paper 0.7981 ±0.0158
paper 0.7981 ±0.0158 Δ at pub 0.0929 Δ today 0.1239
158
GraphSAGE
actual #158 vs paper #651 493 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0780
best reported
actual #158 vs paper #651 493 places worse
paper 0.7875 ±0.0118

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7875 ±0.0118 Δ at pub 0.1165
183
GAT
actual #183 vs paper #650 467 places worse
0.9010 ±0.0580
best reported
actual #183 vs paper #650 467 places worse
paper 0.7889 ±0.0205
paper 0.7889 ±0.0205 Δ at pub 0.1121 Δ today 0.1121
190
SortPool
actual #190 vs paper #602 412 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0224
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #602 412 places worse
paper 0.8043 ±0.0112
224
Graphormer
actual #224 vs paper #587 363 places worse
0.8960 ±0.0620
best reported
actual #224 vs paper #587 363 places worse
paper 0.8115 ±0.0125
378
GraphTrans
actual #378 vs paper #580 202 places worse
0.8722 ±0.0705
best reported
actual #378 vs paper #580 202 places worse
paper 0.8154 ±0.0091

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8154 ±0.0091 Δ today 0.0568
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
518
SignGT
0.8314 ±0.0056
This paper
593
Set2Set
actual #593 vs paper #593
0.8084 ±0.0067
actual #593 vs paper #593
paper 0.8084 ±0.0067
paper 0.8084 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.0444
596
GT
0.8079 ±0.0098
This paper
630
SAGPool_h
0.7972 ±0.0079
This paper
724
Transformer
0.7425 ±0.0069
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #240 237 places worse
0.9727
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #240 237 places worse
paper 0.7968 ±0.0205
paper 0.7968 ±0.0205 Δ at pub 0.1759
4
GAT
actual #4 vs paper #229 225 places worse
0.9623
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #229 225 places worse
paper 0.7988 ±0.0088
paper 0.7988 ±0.0088 Δ at pub 0.1635
54
SignGT
0.8342 ±0.0072
This paper
100
GraphTrans
actual #100 vs paper #165 65 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #100 vs paper #165 65 places worse
paper 0.8127 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8127 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0077 Δ today 0.0133
105
SAT
actual #105 vs paper #187 82 places worse
0.8250 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #105 vs paper #187 82 places worse
paper 0.8069 ±0.0155

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8069 ±0.0155 Δ today 0.0181
131
GraphSAGE
actual #131 vs paper #265 134 places worse
0.8200 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #131 vs paper #265 134 places worse
paper 0.7898 ±0.0184
paper 0.7898 ±0.0184 Δ at pub 0.0302
154
Graphormer
actual #154 vs paper #154
0.8144 ±0.0057
actual #154 vs paper #154
paper 0.8144 ±0.0057
paper 0.8144 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.1988
219
GT
0.8015 ±0.0204
This paper
415
SortPool
actual #415 vs paper #443 28 places worse
0.7496 ±0.0134
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #443 28 places worse
paper 0.7342 ±0.0112

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7342 ±0.0112 Δ at pub 0.0057 Δ today 0.0154
463
Set2Set
actual #463 vs paper #502 39 places worse
0.7170 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #463 vs paper #502 39 places worse
paper 0.6862 ±0.0190
paper 0.6862 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0308
504
Transformer
0.6847 ±0.0178
This paper
509
SAGPool_h
actual #509 vs paper #509
0.6755 ±0.0103
actual #509 vs paper #509
paper 0.6755 ±0.0103

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.6755 ±0.0103 Δ at pub 0.0005
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ±0.0070
3
CoCN
0.8722 ±0.0013
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #285 262 places worse
0.8260 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #285 262 places worse
paper 0.7192 ±0.0324
paper 0.7192 ±0.0324 Δ at pub 0.0868 Δ today 0.1068
26
SignGT
0.8240 ±0.0014
This paper
30
GIN
0.8220 ±0.0210
38
Graphormer
actual #38 vs paper #38
0.8180 ±0.0224
actual #38 vs paper #38
paper 0.8180 ±0.0224
paper 0.8180 ±0.0224 Δ at pub 0.0930
101
SAT
actual #101 vs paper #125 24 places worse
0.8060 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #125 24 places worse
paper 0.8005 ±0.0055

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8005 ±0.0055 Δ today 0.0055
125
SortPool
actual #125 vs paper #290 165 places worse
0.8007
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #290 165 places worse
paper 0.7118 ±0.0212
paper 0.7118 ±0.0212 Δ at pub 0.0889
131
GraphTrans
0.7981 ±0.0084
This paper
136
GraphSAGE
0.7970 ±0.0170
This paper
139
GT
0.7963 ±0.0102
This paper
142
Set2Set
actual #142 vs paper #319 177 places worse
0.7960 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #142 vs paper #319 177 places worse
paper 0.6534 ±0.0044
paper 0.6534 ±0.0044 Δ at pub 0.1426
151
MLP
0.7920 ±0.0240
155
GAT
actual #155 vs paper #234 79 places worse
0.7908 ±0.0136
best reported
actual #155 vs paper #234 79 places worse
paper 0.7580 ±0.0160
paper 0.7580 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0328
276
SAGPool_h
0.7308 ±0.0131
This paper
305
Transformer
0.6957 ±0.0322
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
19
Specformer
actual #19 vs paper #82 63 places worse
0.4193 ±0.0104
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #82 63 places worse
paper 0.3826 ±0.0052
paper 0.3826 ±0.0052 Δ today 0.0367
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #98 46 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #98 46 places worse
paper 0.3786 ±0.0019
paper 0.3786 ±0.0019 Δ at pub 0.0206 Δ today 0.0206
56
FAGCN
actual #56 vs paper #111 55 places worse
0.3970
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #111 55 places worse
paper 0.3763 ±0.0061
paper 0.3763 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0207
58
GloGNN
actual #58 vs paper #58
0.3959 ±0.0029
actual #58 vs paper #58
paper 0.3959 ±0.0029

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3959 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0139
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
74
SignGT
0.3865 ±0.0032
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #213 78 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #213 78 places worse
paper 0.3545 ±0.0042
paper 0.3545 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0145
136
NodeFormer
actual #136 vs paper #247 111 places worse
0.3690 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #136 vs paper #247 111 places worse
paper 0.3462 ±0.0082
best today: Even Sparser Graph Transformers (NeurIPS 2024)
paper 0.3462 ±0.0082 Δ today 0.0228
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #346 164 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #346 164 places worse
paper 0.3018 ±0.0021
paper 0.3018 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0587
193
SignGT-T
0.3586
This paper
237
SGC
actual #237 vs paper #353 116 places worse
0.3490 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #237 vs paper #353 116 places worse
paper 0.2997 ±0.0026
paper 0.2997 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0493
246
SignGT-O
0.3467
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

ACM

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SignGT
0.9545 ±0.0049
This paper
2
NodeFormer
0.9493 ±0.0035
This paper
3
FAGCN
actual #3 vs paper #3
0.9487 ±0.0059
actual #3 vs paper #3
paper 0.9487 ±0.0059
paper 0.9487 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0449
4
Specformer
0.9454 ±0.0043
This paper
5
GPRGNN
0.9442 ±0.0049
This paper
7
GAT
actual #7 vs paper #7
0.9424 ±0.0043
actual #7 vs paper #7
paper 0.9424 ±0.0043
paper 0.9424 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0408
9
GloGNN
0.9407 ±0.0046
This paper
10
SignGT-O
0.9401
This paper
26
SGC
actual #26 vs paper #29 3 places worse
0.9315 ±0.0022
actual #26 vs paper #29 3 places worse
paper 0.9315 ±0.0022
paper 0.9315 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0140
34
GCN
actual #34 vs paper #34
0.9233 ±0.0038
actual #34 vs paper #34
paper 0.9233 ±0.0038

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9233 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0048
64
SignGT-T
0.8132
This paper
67
GraphSAGE
0.7529 ±0.0020
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere