KDD 2023

Marginal Nodes Matter: Towards Structure Fairness in Graphs

Xiaotian Han, Kaixiong Zhou, Ting-Hsiang Wang, Jundong Li, Fei Wang, Na Zou

Main figure for Marginal Nodes Matter: Towards Structure Fairness in Graphs

Abstract

In social network, a person located at the periphery region (marginal node) is likely to be treated unfairly when compared with the persons at the center. While existing fairness works on graphs mainly focus on protecting sensitive attributes (e.g., age and gender), the fairness incurred by the graph structure should also be given attention. On the other hand, the information aggregation mechanism of graph neural networks amplifies such structure unfairness, as marginal nodes are often far away from other nodes. In this paper, we focus on novel fairness incurred by the graph structure on graph neural networks, named structure fairness. Specifically, we first analyzed multiple graphs and observed that marginal nodes in graphs have a worse performance of downstream tasks than others in graph neural networks. Motivated by the observation, we propose Structural Fair Graph Neural Network (SFairGNN), which combines neighborhood expansion based structure debiasing with hop-aware attentive information aggregation to achieve structure fairness. Our experiments show SFairGNN can significantly improve structure fairness while maintaining overall performance in the downstream tasks.

Proposed method: SFairGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 5 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 2 datasets

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #758 737 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #758 737 places worse
paper 0.7600
paper 0.7600 Δ at pub 0.1204 Δ today 0.1404
39
SAGE
actual #39 vs paper #776 737 places worse
0.8911 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #776 737 places worse
paper 0.7485
44
GAT
actual #44 vs paper #849 805 places worse
0.8897 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #849 805 places worse
paper 0.6649
141
GraphSAGE
0.8708 ±0.0085
724
MLP
0.7768
725
SFairGNN
0.7765
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #870 835 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #870 835 places worse
paper 0.4755
paper 0.4755 Δ at pub 0.3325
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #857 813 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #857 813 places worse
paper 0.5403
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
259
SAGE
actual #259 vs paper #855 596 places worse
0.7361 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #259 vs paper #855 596 places worse
paper 0.5445
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
858
SFairGNN
0.5367
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #715 697 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #715 697 places worse
paper 0.7744
20
GAT
actual #20 vs paper #856 836 places worse
0.9233 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #856 836 places worse
paper 0.6666
116
SAGE
actual #116 vs paper #694 578 places worse
0.7782
actual #116 vs paper #694 578 places worse
paper 0.7782
125
GraphSAGE
0.8864 ±0.0030
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
610
SFairGNN
0.7885
This paper

Amazon-Photo

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

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelACC ↑Paper
1
SAGE
0.9109
This paper
2
GCN
0.9102
This paper
3
GAT
0.8915
This paper
4
SFairGNN
0.8889
This paper

Coauthor-Physics

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

Sorted by ACC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelACC ↑Paper
1
SFairGNN
0.9174
This paper
2
GCN
0.9064
This paper
3
SAGE
0.9061
This paper
4
GAT
0.7879
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) Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result