LoG 2023

Data Augmentation for Supervised Graph Outlier Detection via Latent Diffusion Models

Kay Liu, Hengrui Zhang, Ziqing Hu, Fangxin Wang, Philip S. Yu

Main figure for Data Augmentation for Supervised Graph Outlier Detection via Latent Diffusion Models

Abstract

A fundamental challenge confronting supervised graph outlier detection algorithms is the prevalent problem of class imbalance, where the scarcity of outlier instances compared to normal instances often results in suboptimal performance. Recently, generative models, especially diffusion models, have demonstrated their efficacy in synthesizing high-fidelity images. Despite their extraordinary generation quality, their potential in data augmentation for supervised graph outlier detection remains largely underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce GODM, a novel data augmentation for mitigating class imbalance in supervised Graph Outlier detection via latent Diffusion Models. Extensive experiments conducted on multiple datasets substantiate the effectiveness and efficiency of GODM. The case study further demonstrated the generation quality of our synthetic data. To foster accessibility and reproducibility, we encapsulate GODM into a plug-and-play package and release it at PyPI:.

Proposed method: GODM

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Polynormer-r
0.8591 ±0.0074
2
DC-GNN
0.8588 ±0.0081
3
TANGO-GPS
0.8566 ±0.0101
28
GAT
actual #28 vs paper #127 99 places worse
0.8443 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #127 99 places worse
paper 0.7726
paper 0.7726 Δ at pub 0.0644 Δ today 0.0717
50
GCN
actual #50 vs paper #136 86 places worse
0.8364 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #136 86 places worse
paper 0.7469
55
GODM
0.8346
This paper
56
GOVAE
0.8342
This paper
61
GT
actual #61 vs paper #100 39 places worse
0.8323 ±0.0064
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #100 39 places worse
paper 0.7924
77
GraphSAGE
actual #77 vs paper #100 23 places worse
0.8243 ±0.0044
best reported
actual #77 vs paper #100 23 places worse
paper 0.7942
paper 0.7942 Δ today 0.0301
76
SAGE
0.8243 ±0.0044
89
GIN
actual #89 vs paper #137 48 places worse
0.8072 ±0.0119
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #137 48 places worse
paper 0.7405
paper 0.7405 Δ today 0.0667
94
BWGNN
0.8015
This paper
98
GHRN
0.7980
This paper
100
GATSep
0.7963
This paper
123
DAGAD
0.7769
This paper
129
GAS
0.7691
This paper
132
BernNet
0.7620
This paper
133
DCI
0.7598
This paper
134
AMNet
0.7583
This paper
139
MLP
0.7362 ±0.0020
146
PCGNN
0.7218
This paper
150
SGC
0.7067
This paper
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
NID_GAT
0.9703 ±0.0002
2
NID_GCN
0.9685 ±0.0010
3
UniGAP
0.8421 ±0.0080
16
GCN
actual #16 vs paper #106 90 places worse
0.7902 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #106 90 places worse
paper 0.6981
26
GAT
actual #26 vs paper #101 75 places worse
0.7835 ±0.0116
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #101 75 places worse
paper 0.7033
30
GT
actual #30 vs paper #95 65 places worse
0.7795 ±0.0068
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #95 65 places worse
paper 0.7083
46
GraphSAGE
actual #46 vs paper #90 44 places worse
0.7721 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #90 44 places worse
paper 0.7169
51
GODM
0.7684
This paper
58
SAGE
0.7644 ±0.0062
67
GOVAE
0.7573
This paper
92
DAGAD
0.7121
This paper
96
MLP
0.7082 ±0.0010
97
BernNet
0.7080
This paper
105
GATSep
0.6996
This paper
106
SGC
0.6988
This paper
107
AMNet
0.6971
This paper
110
BWGNN
0.6947
This paper
114
PCGNN
0.6838
This paper
115
GHRN
0.6824
This paper
117
DCI
0.6795
This paper
118
GIN
0.6776
This paper
128
GAS
0.6450
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