BiKT: Unleashing the potential of GNNs via Bi-directional Knowledge Transfer

Shuai Zheng, Zhizhe Liu, Zhenfeng Zhu, Xingxing Zhang, Jianxin Li, Yao Zhao

Main figure for BiKT: Unleashing the potential of GNNs via Bi-directional Knowledge Transfer

Abstract

Based on the message-passing paradigm, there has been an amount of research proposing diverse and impressive feature propagation mechanisms to improve the performance of GNNs. However, less focus has been put on feature transformation, another major operation of the message-passing framework. In this paper, we first empirically investigate the performance of the feature transformation operation in several typical GNNs. Unexpectedly, we notice that GNNs do not completely free up the power of the inherent feature transformation operation. By this observation, we propose the Bi-directional Knowledge Transfer (BiKT), a plug-and-play approach to unleash the potential of the feature transformation operations without modifying the original architecture. Taking the feature transformation operation as a derived representation learning model that shares parameters with the original GNN, the direct prediction by this model provides a topological-agnostic knowledge feedback that can further instruct the learning of GNN and the feature transformations therein. On this basis, BiKT not only allows us to acquire knowledge from both the GNN and its derived model but promotes each other by injecting the knowledge into the other. In addition, a theoretical analysis is further provided to demonstrate that BiKT improves the generalization bound of the GNNs from the perspective of domain adaption. An extensive group of experiments on up to 7 datasets with 5 typical GNNs demonstrates that BiKT brings up to 0.5\

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #339 337 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #339 337 places worse
paper 0.8426 ±0.0155
paper 0.8426 ±0.0155 Δ at pub 0.0546 Δ today 0.0986
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #373 370 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #373 370 places worse
paper 0.8342 ±0.0168
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
52
GCNII
actual #52 vs paper #315 263 places worse
0.8482 ±0.0100
actual #52 vs paper #315 263 places worse
paper 0.8482 ±0.0100

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8482 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0157 Δ today 0.0622
126
FAGCN
actual #126 vs paper #342 216 places worse
0.8968 ±0.0097
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #342 216 places worse
paper 0.8420 ±0.0085
paper 0.8420 ±0.0085 Δ at pub 0.0548
292
BiKT-GCN
0.8592 ±0.0126
This paper
303
BiKT-GCNII
0.8540 ±0.0107
This paper
311
BiKT-FAGCN
0.8507 ±0.0115
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463
327
BiKT-GAT
0.8448 ±0.0117
This paper
336
BiKT-MLP_GCNII
0.8439 ±0.0091
This paper
366
BiKT-MixHop
0.8358 ±0.0117
This paper
384
BiKT-MLP_MixHop
0.8296 ±0.0115
This paper
389
BiKT-MLP_GAT
0.8268 ±0.0147
This paper
415
BiKT-MLP_GCN
0.8126 ±0.0174
This paper
432
MixHop
actual #432 vs paper #435 3 places worse
0.7952 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #432 vs paper #435 3 places worse
paper 0.7898 ±0.0123

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7898 ±0.0123 Δ at pub 0.0054
437
BiKT-MLP_FAGCN
0.7868 ±0.0195
This paper
464
MLP_GCN
0.7269 ±0.0091
This paper
467
MLP_MixHop
0.7130 ±0.0131
This paper
468
MLP_GCNII
0.7128 ±0.0110
This paper
474
MLP_FAGCN
0.7014 ±0.0119
This paper
476
MLP_GAT
0.6968 ±0.0109
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
actual #39 vs paper #376 337 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #376 337 places worse
paper 0.8722 ±0.0745

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8722 ±0.0745 Δ at pub 0.0608
63
GCN
actual #63 vs paper #480 417 places worse
0.9220 ±0.0440
best reported
actual #63 vs paper #480 417 places worse
paper 0.8416 ±0.0640

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8416 ±0.0640 Δ at pub 0.0494 Δ today 0.0804
158
GraphSAGE
0.9040 ±0.0780
182
BiKT-GIN
0.9013 ±0.0728
This paper
374
BiKT-GCN
0.8726 ±0.0501
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #194 85 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #194 85 places worse
paper 0.7609 ±0.0143

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7609 ±0.0143 Δ at pub 0.0171
141
BiKT-GCN
0.7715 ±0.0122
This paper
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
180
BiKT-GIN
0.7647 ±0.0181
This paper
184
GCN
actual #184 vs paper #231 47 places worse
0.7630 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #231 47 places worse
paper 0.7525 ±0.0207

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7525 ±0.0207 Δ at pub 0.0105
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