ICLR 2023

MuseGNN: Forming Scalable, Convergent GNN Layers that Minimize a Sampling-Based Energy

Haitian Jiang, Renjie Liu, Zengfeng Huang, Yichuan Wang, Xiao Yan, Zhenkun Cai, Minjie Wang, David Wipf

Main figure for MuseGNN: Forming Scalable, Convergent GNN Layers that Minimize a Sampling-Based Energy

Abstract

Among the many variants of graph neural network (GNN) architectures capable of modeling data with cross-instance relations, an important subclass involves layers designed such that the forward pass iteratively reduces a graph-regularized energy function of interest. In this way, node embeddings produced at the output layer dually serve as both predictive features for solving downstream tasks (e.g., node classification) and energy function minimizers that inherit transparent, exploitable inductive biases and interpretability. However, scaling GNN architectures constructed in this way remains challenging, in part because the convergence of the forward pass may involve models with considerable depth. To tackle this limitation, we propose a sampling-based energy function and scalable GNN layers that iteratively reduce it, guided by convergence guarantees in certain settings. We also instantiate a full GNN architecture based on these designs, and the model achieves competitive accuracy and scalability when applied to the largest publicly-available node classification benchmark exceeding 1TB in size. Our source code is available at https://github.com/haitian-jiang/MuseGNN.

Proposed method: MuseGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
77
SIGN
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
0.8310 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #136 59 places worse
paper 0.8052
paper 0.8052 Δ at pub 0.0258
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #342 248 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #342 248 places worse
paper 0.6887
paper 0.6887 Δ at pub 0.1333
117
MuseGNN
0.8123
This paper
118
LazyGNN
0.8121 ±0.0021
This paper
166
GAT (NS)
0.7945 ±0.0059
This paper
177
FreshGNN
0.7921 ±0.0037
This paper
191
Cluster-GCN
0.7897
This paper
193
SGFormer (NS)
0.7894 ±0.0025
This paper
212
GCN (NS)
0.7849 ±0.0053
This paper
216
SAGE (NS)
0.7829 ±0.0016
This paper
231
MariusGNN
0.7695 ±0.0024
This paper
305
USP
0.7380 ±0.0030
This paper
331
GraphFM
0.7076
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #76 75 places worse
paper 0.6329
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
27
MuseGNN
0.6682
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #53 15 places worse
paper 0.6568
40
GAT (NS)
0.6628 ±0.0008
This paper
42
FreshGNN
0.6622 ±0.0007
This paper
43
SAGE (NS)
0.6620 ±0.0013
This paper
48
SGFormer (NS)
0.6601 ±0.0037
This paper
51
GCN (NS)
0.6583 ±0.0036
This paper
79
MariusGNN
0.6297 ±0.0013
This paper
90
Cluster-GCN
0.5335
This paper
95
MLP
0.4960 ±0.0030
96
GraphFM
0.4803
This paper
100
LazyGNN
0.3980 ±0.0009
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) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere