WWW 2023

A Quasi-Wasserstein Loss for Learning Graph Neural Networks

Minjie Cheng, Hongteng Xu

Main figure for A Quasi-Wasserstein Loss for Learning Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

When learning graph neural networks (GNNs) in node-level prediction tasks, most existing loss functions are applied for each node independently, even if node embeddings and their labels are non-i.i.d. because of their graph structures. To eliminate such inconsistency, in this study we propose a novel Quasi-Wasserstein (QW) loss with the help of the optimal transport defined on graphs, leading to new learning and prediction paradigms of GNNs. In particular, we design a ``Quasi-Wasserstein'' distance between the observed multi-dimensional node labels and their estimations, optimizing the label transport defined on graph edges. The estimations are parameterized by a GNN in which the optimal label transport may determine the graph edge weights optionally. By reformulating the strict constraint of the label transport to a Bregman divergence-based regularizer, we obtain the proposed Quasi-Wasserstein loss associated with two efficient solvers learning the GNN together with optimal label transport. When predicting node labels, our model combines the output of the GNN with the residual component provided by the optimal label transport, leading to a new transductive prediction paradigm. Experiments show that the proposed QW loss applies to various GNNs and helps to improve their performance in node-level classification and regression tasks. The code of this work can be found at.

Proposed method: QW

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 9 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
50
ChebNetII
0.8000 ±0.0074
This paper
77
GCN-LPA
0.7851 ±0.0122
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #80 78 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #80 78 places worse
paper 0.9438 ±0.0025
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #188 180 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #188 180 places worse
paper 0.9324 ±0.0043
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #123 102 places worse
0.9370 ±0.0027
actual #21 vs paper #123 102 places worse
paper 0.9370 ±0.0027
47
QW
0.9525 ±0.0025
This paper
56
GraphSAGE
actual #56 vs paper #56
0.9508 ±0.0026
actual #56 vs paper #56
paper 0.9508 ±0.0026
prev best: Elastic Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021)
paper 0.9508 ±0.0026 Δ at pub 0.0418
62
ChebNetII
actual #62 vs paper #148 86 places worse
0.9492 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #148 86 places worse
paper 0.9350 ±0.0034
paper 0.9350 ±0.0034 Δ today 0.0142
127
BernNet
actual #127 vs paper #127
0.9368 ±0.0028
actual #127 vs paper #127
paper 0.9368 ±0.0028

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9368 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0005
328
GIN
actual #328 vs paper #454 126 places worse
0.9211 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #328 vs paper #454 126 places worse
paper 0.8983 ±0.0072
best at pub: Union Subgraph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023)
paper 0.8983 ±0.0072 Δ at pub 0.0228
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
490
GCN + LPA
0.8810 ±0.0131
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #187 185 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #187 185 places worse
paper 0.8842 ±0.0045
paper 0.8842 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.0130 Δ today 0.0570
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #97 94 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #97 94 places worse
paper 0.9008 ±0.0036
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #122 76 places worse
0.8971 ±0.0038
actual #46 vs paper #122 76 places worse
paper 0.8971 ±0.0038
prev best: Elastic Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2021)
paper 0.8971 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0901 Δ today 0.0149
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #281 223 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #281 223 places worse
paper 0.8627 ±0.0037
paper 0.8627 ±0.0037 Δ at pub 0.0177 Δ today 0.0466
76
QW
0.9043 ±0.0022
This paper
180
BernNet
actual #180 vs paper #228 48 places worse
0.8861 ±0.0041
best reported
actual #180 vs paper #228 48 places worse
paper 0.8761 ±0.0046
paper 0.8761 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0100
268
ChebNetII
0.8658 ±0.0071
This paper
282
GIN
actual #282 vs paper #420 138 places worse
0.8626 ±0.0056
best reported
actual #282 vs paper #420 138 places worse
paper 0.8087 ±0.0143
best at pub: Union Subgraph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023)
paper 0.8087 ±0.0143 Δ at pub 0.0539
320
MLP
0.8463
390
GCN + LPA
0.8248 ±0.0069
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
16
QW
0.9393 ±0.0098
This paper
22
BernNet
actual #22 vs paper #22
0.9328 ±0.0148
actual #22 vs paper #22
paper 0.9328 ±0.0148

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9328 ±0.0148 Δ at pub 0.0066
23
ChebNetII
actual #23 vs paper #30 7 places worse
0.9328 ±0.0147
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #30 7 places worse
paper 0.9279 ±0.0148

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9279 ±0.0148 Δ at pub 0.0049 Δ today 0.0049
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
46
APPNP
actual #46 vs paper #46
0.9131 ±0.0197
actual #46 vs paper #46
paper 0.9131 ±0.0197

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9131 ±0.0197 Δ at pub 0.0013
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.9000 ±0.0230
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.9000 ±0.0230

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9000 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0580
189
SAGE
0.8269
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #241 30 places worse
0.8000 ±0.0311
actual #211 vs paper #241 30 places worse
paper 0.8000 ±0.0311

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8000 ±0.0311 Δ at pub 0.0020
257
GCN
actual #257 vs paper #286 29 places worse
0.7933 ±0.0447
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #286 29 places worse
paper 0.7721 ±0.0328
best today: Graph Wave Networks (WWW 2025)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7721 ±0.0328 Δ at pub 0.0119 Δ today 0.0212
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #358 32 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #358 32 places worse
paper 0.7279 ±0.0492

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7279 ±0.0492 Δ at pub 0.0181 Δ today 0.0181
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
21
BernNet
actual #21 vs paper #38 17 places worse
0.4179 ±0.0101
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #38 17 places worse
paper 0.4072 ±0.0080

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4072 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0107 Δ today 0.0107
22
ChebNetII
actual #22 vs paper #38 16 places worse
0.4175 ±0.0107
best reported
actual #22 vs paper #38 16 places worse
paper 0.4070 ±0.0077

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4070 ±0.0077 Δ at pub 0.0105 Δ today 0.0105
29
QW
0.4137 ±0.0067
This paper
41
APPNP
actual #41 vs paper #41
0.4046 ±0.0064
actual #41 vs paper #41
paper 0.4046 ±0.0064
paper 0.4046 ±0.0064 Δ at pub 0.0056
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #68
0.3899 ±0.0085
actual #68 vs paper #68
paper 0.3899 ±0.0085

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3899 ±0.0085 Δ at pub 0.0044
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #267 132 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #267 132 places worse
paper 0.3400 ±0.0128
paper 0.3400 ±0.0128 Δ at pub 0.0290
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #198 16 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #198 16 places worse
paper 0.3568 ±0.0060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3568 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0037
266
GIN
actual #266 vs paper #297 31 places worse
0.3410 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #266 vs paper #297 31 places worse
paper 0.3237 ±0.0156

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3237 ±0.0156 Δ today 0.0173
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