ICLR 2023

Mixture of Weak & Strong Experts on Graphs

Hanqing Zeng, Hanjia Lyu, Diyi Hu, Yinglong Xia, Jiebo Luo

Main figure for Mixture of Weak & Strong Experts on Graphs

Abstract

Realistic graphs contain both [(1)] rich self-features of nodes and [(2)] informative structures of neighborhoods, jointly handled by a Graph Neural Network (GNN) in the typical setup. We propose to decouple the two modalities by ixture f eak and rong experts (Mowst), where the weak expert is a light-weight Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP), and the strong expert is an off-the-shelf GNN. To adapt the experts' collaboration to different target nodes, we propose a ``confidence'' mechanism based on the dispersion of the weak expert's prediction logits. The strong expert is conditionally activated in the low-confidence region when either the node's classification relies on neighborhood information, or the weak expert has low model quality. We reveal interesting training dynamics by analyzing the influence of the confidence function on loss: our training algorithm encourages the specialization of each expert by effectively generating soft splitting of the graph. In addition, our ``confidence'' design imposes a desirable bias toward the strong expert to benefit from GNN's better generalization capability. Mowst is easy to optimize and achieves strong expressive power, with a computation cost comparable to a single GNN. Empirically, Mowst on 4 backbone GNN architectures show significant accuracy improvement on 6 standard node classification benchmarks, including both homophilous and heterophilous graphs.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets SOTA at publication on 1 7 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
actual #4 vs paper #167 163 places worse
0.8933
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #167 163 places worse
paper 0.7938 ±0.0044
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #237 231 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #237 231 places worse
paper 0.7649 ±0.0022
83
GraphSAGE
0.8287
220
GraphMoE-SAGE
0.7779
This paper
238
AdaGCN
actual #238 vs paper #342 104 places worse
0.7641
best reported
actual #238 vs paper #342 104 places worse
paper 0.6906 ±0.0004
paper 0.6906 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0735
301
GraphMoE-GCN
0.7390
This paper
315
GPR-GNN
0.7241 ±0.0004
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DC-GNN
0.8669 ±0.0022
2
M2M-GNN
0.8594 ±0.0040
3
GloGNN
0.8574 ±0.0042
12
MoE-GIN
0.8456 ±0.0031
This paper
20
GPR-GNN
actual #20 vs paper #37 17 places worse
0.8354 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #37 17 places worse
paper 0.8138 ±0.0016
paper 0.8138 ±0.0016 Δ at pub 0.0216 Δ today 0.0216
21
MoE-H2GCN
0.8339 ±0.0043
This paper
24
H2GCN
actual #24 vs paper #27 3 places worse
0.8320 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #27 3 places worse
paper 0.8271 ±0.0067

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8271 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.0049
25
MoE-GCN
0.8319 ±0.0043
This paper
29
GIN
0.8268 ±0.0032
This paper
31
GCN
actual #31 vs paper #33 2 places worse
0.8247 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #33 2 places worse
paper 0.8217 ±0.0004

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8217 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0030
35
GraphMoE-GCN
0.8161 ±0.0027
This paper
36
GAT
actual #36 vs paper #36
0.8153 ±0.0055
actual #36 vs paper #36
paper 0.8153 ±0.0055

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8153 ±0.0055 Δ at pub 0.0008
41
GIN-skip
0.8032 ±0.0043
This paper
42
MoE-GIN-skip
0.8032 ±0.0043
This paper
44
MoE-SAGE
0.7907 ±0.0043
This paper
45
GraphMoE-SAGE
0.7704 ±0.0055
This paper
47
GraphSAGE
0.7675 ±0.0052
This paper
50
GCN-skip
0.7658 ±0.0053
This paper
51
MLP
0.7534 ±0.0064
53
AdaGCN
0.7442 ±0.0058
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SAGE
0.8597 ±0.0021
2
Polynormer
0.8595 ±0.0007
3
NID_SAGE
0.8563 ±0.0031
4
MoE-H2GCN
0.8302 ±0.0030
This paper
12
H2GCN
0.8089 ±0.0016
This paper
13
GPR-GNN
actual #13 vs paper #16 3 places worse
0.8074 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #16 3 places worse
paper 0.7883 ±0.0005
paper 0.7883 ±0.0005 Δ at pub 0.0191 Δ today 0.0191
15
MoE-GIN-skip
0.7970 ±0.0023
This paper
17
MoE-SAGE
0.7784 ±0.0004
This paper
18
MoE-GCN
0.7728 ±0.0008
This paper
19
GraphMoE-GCN
0.7699 ±0.0010
This paper
20
GraphMoE-SAGE
0.7667 ±0.0008
This paper
21
GIN-skip
0.7629 ±0.0051
This paper
22
MoE-GIN
0.7611 ±0.0039
This paper
23
GCN
actual #23 vs paper #23
0.7601 ±0.0049
actual #23 vs paper #23
paper 0.7601 ±0.0049
paper 0.7601 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0056
24
GraphSAGE
0.7576 ±0.0004
This paper
26
GCN-skip
0.7346 ±0.0004
This paper
28
GAT
actual #28 vs paper #28
0.7177 ±0.0618
actual #28 vs paper #28
paper 0.7177 ±0.0618

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7177 ±0.0618 Δ at pub 0.0201
31
MLP
0.7048 ±0.0077
41
AdaGCN
0.5592 ±0.0035
This paper
42
GIN
0.5337 ±0.0215
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DGT
0.6609 ±0.0022
2
ICG_u-NN
0.6608 ±0.0074
3
LINKX
0.6606 ±0.0019
4
MoE-H2GCN
0.6603 ±0.0016
This paper
5
H2GCN
0.6570 ±0.0020
This paper
12
MoE-GIN-skip
0.6491 ±0.0022
This paper
14
GraphSAGE
actual #14 vs paper #29 15 places worse
0.6473 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #29 15 places worse
paper 0.6199 ±0.0030
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)
paper 0.6199 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0274
15
MoE-SAGE
0.6438 ±0.0014
This paper
16
GCN
actual #16 vs paper #27 11 places worse
0.6434 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #27 11 places worse
paper 0.6242 ±0.0053
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)
paper 0.6242 ±0.0053 Δ at pub 0.0192
17
MoE-GIN
0.6432 ±0.0034
This paper
21
MoE-GCN
0.6374 ±0.0023
This paper
22
GraphMoE-SAGE
0.6342 ±0.0023
This paper
25
GAT
actual #25 vs paper #41 16 places worse
0.6290 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #25 vs paper #41 16 places worse
paper 0.5989 ±0.0412
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5989 ±0.0412 Δ at pub 0.0301
26
GraphMoE-GCN
0.6276 ±0.0022
This paper
27
GPR-GNN
actual #27 vs paper #29 2 places worse
0.6259 ±0.0038
best reported
actual #27 vs paper #29 2 places worse
paper 0.6189 ±0.0029
paper 0.6189 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0070 Δ today 0.0070
30
GIN
0.6176 ±0.0060
This paper
33
MLP
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
0.6114 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #37 4 places worse
paper 0.6092 ±0.0007
best at pub: Deformable Graph Transformer (2022)
paper 0.6092 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0022
35
GCN-skip
0.6105 ±0.0023
This paper
36
AdaGCN
0.6102 ±0.0014
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published