ICLR 2023

Efficient Subgraph GNNs by Learning Effective Selection Policies

Beatrice Bevilacqua, Moshe Eliasof, E. Meirom, Bruno Ribeiro, Haggai Maron

Main figure for Efficient Subgraph GNNs by Learning Effective Selection Policies

Abstract

Subgraph GNNs are provably expressive neural architectures that learn graph representations from sets of subgraphs. Unfortunately, their applicability is hampered by the computational complexity associated with performing message passing on many subgraphs. In this paper, we consider the problem of learning to select a small subset of the large set of possible subgraphs in a data-driven fashion. We first motivate the problem by proving that there are families of WL-indistinguishable graphs for which there exist efficient subgraph selection policies: small subsets of subgraphs that can already identify all the graphs within the family. We then propose a new approach, called Policy-learn, that learns how to select subgraphs in an iterative manner. We prove that, unlike popular random policies and prior work addressing the same problem, our architecture is able to learn the efficient policies mentioned above. Our experimental results demonstrate that Policy-learn\ outperforms existing baselines across a wide range of datasets.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 2 baseline values reported too low

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

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
55
Policy-learn T=2
0.7913 ±0.0060
This paper
82
Policy-learn T=5
0.7849 ±0.0101
This paper
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #221 112 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #221 112 places worse
paper 0.7558 ±0.0140

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7558 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0222
117
Random T=2
0.7755 ±0.0124
This paper
134
Random T=5
0.7730 ±0.0256
This paper
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
173
Full
0.7654 ±0.0137
This paper
184
GCN
actual #184 vs paper #196 12 places worse
0.7630 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #196 12 places worse
paper 0.7606 ±0.0097

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7606 ±0.0097 Δ at pub 0.0024

MoleculeNet

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
HIMP
0.8740 ±0.0050
2
GINE w/ VN
0.8720 ±0.0030
3
NaiveGINe+ K=3 w/ VN
0.8700 ±0.0040
14
GCN
actual #14 vs paper #216 202 places worse
0.8400 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #216 202 places worse
paper 0.7529 ±0.0069
paper 0.7529 ±0.0069 Δ at pub 0.0871
24
GIN
actual #24 vs paper #234 210 places worse
0.8290 ±0.0069
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #234 210 places worse
paper 0.7491 ±0.0051
paper 0.7491 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0799
133
Policy-learn T=2
0.7747 ±0.0082
This paper
135
GraphSAGE
0.7744 ±0.0038
141
Policy-learn T=5
0.7736 ±0.0060
This paper
166
Random T=2
0.7665 ±0.0089
This paper
167
Random T=5
0.7662 ±0.0063
This paper
178
Full
0.7625 ±0.0112
This paper

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
15
Full
1.0000
This paper
16
Random T=2
1.0000
This paper
17
MPNNs
1.0000
This paper
1
PPGN
1.0000
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
3
AgentNet
1.0000
8
GCN
1.0000
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)