AdaFGL: A New Paradigm for Federated Node Classification with Topology Heterogeneity

Xunkai Li, Zhengyu Wu, Wentao Zhang, Henan Sun, Ronghua Li, Guoren Wang

Main figure for AdaFGL: A New Paradigm for Federated Node Classification with Topology Heterogeneity

Abstract

Recently, Federated Graph Learning (FGL) has attracted significant attention as a distributed framework based on graph neural networks, primarily due to its capability to break data silos. Existing FGL studies employ community split on the homophilous global graph by default to simulate federated semi-supervised node classification settings. Such a strategy assumes the consistency of topology between the multi-client subgraphs and the global graph, where connected nodes are highly likely to possess similar feature distributions and the same label. However, in real-world implementations, the varying perspectives of local data engineering result in various subgraph topologies, posing unique heterogeneity challenges in FGL. Unlike the well-known label Non-independent identical distribution (Non-iid) problems in federated learning, FGL heterogeneity essentially reveals the topological divergence among multiple clients, namely homophily or heterophily. To simulate and handle this unique challenge, we introduce the concept of structure Non-iid split and then present a new paradigm called ptive ederated raph earning (AdaFGL), a decoupled two-step personalized approach. To begin with, AdaFGL employs standard multi-client federated collaborative training to acquire the federated knowledge extractor by aggregating uploaded models in the final round at the server. Then, each client conducts personalized training based on the local subgraph and the federated knowledge extractor. Extensive experiments on the 12 graph benchmark datasets validate the superior performance of AdaFGL over state-of-the-art baselines. Specifically, in terms of test accuracy, our proposed AdaFGL outperforms baselines by significant margins of 3.24\

Proposed method: AdaFGL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 4 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 #426 424 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #426 424 places worse
paper 0.8050 ±0.0040
paper 0.8050 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0922 Δ today 0.1362
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
30
GGCN
actual #30 vs paper #420 390 places worse
0.9181 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #420 390 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.0070
paper 0.8080 ±0.0070 Δ today 0.1101
52
GCNII
actual #52 vs paper #420 368 places worse
0.9104 ±0.0041
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #420 368 places worse
paper 0.8100 ±0.0070
paper 0.8100 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0382 Δ today 0.1004
72
GPRGNN
actual #72 vs paper #423 351 places worse
0.9050 ±0.0091
best reported
actual #72 vs paper #423 351 places worse
paper 0.8070 ±0.0050
152
GloGNN
actual #152 vs paper #420 268 places worse
0.8912 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #152 vs paper #420 268 places worse
paper 0.8090 ±0.0060
paper 0.8090 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0822
320
MLP
0.8463
343
GAMLP
actual #343 vs paper #420 77 places worse
0.8420 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #343 vs paper #420 77 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.0050
paper 0.8080 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0340
365
AdaFGL
0.8360 ±0.0040
This paper
402
FedSage
0.8210 ±0.0120
This paper
413
FED-PUB
0.8150 ±0.0030
This paper
414
FedGL
0.8130 ±0.0090
This paper
431
GCFL
0.7980 ±0.0020
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