LightDiC: A Simple yet Effective Approach for Large-scale Digraph Representation Learning

Xunkai Li, Meihao Liao, Zhengyu Wu, Daohan Su, Wentao Zhang, Ronghua Li, Guoren Wang

Main figure for LightDiC: A Simple yet Effective Approach for Large-scale Digraph Representation Learning

Abstract

Most existing graph neural networks (GNNs) are limited to undirected graphs, whose restricted scope of the captured relational information hinders their expressive capabilities and deployments in real-world scenarios. Compared with undirected graphs, directed graphs (digraphs) fit the demand for modeling more complex topological systems by capturing more intricate relationships between nodes, such as formulating transportation and financial networks. While some directed GNNs have been introduced, their inspiration mainly comes from deep learning architectures, which lead to redundant complexity and computation, making them inapplicable to large-scale databases. To address these issues, we propose LightDiC, a scalable variant of the digraph convolution based on the magnetic Laplacian. Since topology-related computations are conducted solely during offline pre-processing, LightDiC achieves exceptional scalability, enabling downstream predictions to be trained separately without incurring recursive computational costs. Theoretical analysis shows that LightDiC utilizes directed information to achieve message passing based on the complex field, which corresponds to the proximal gradient descent process of the Dirichlet energy optimization function from the perspective of digraph signal denoising, ensuring its expressiveness. Experimental results demonstrate that LightDiC performs comparably well or even outperforms other SOTA methods in various downstream tasks, with fewer learnable parameters and higher training efficiency. Notably, LightDiC is the first DiGNN to provide satisfactory results in the most representative large-scale database (ogbn-papers100M).

Proposed method: LightDiC

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
0.9302 ±0.0011
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
98
DiGCN-IB
0.8005 ±0.0054
This paper
104
LightDiC
0.7984 ±0.0036
This paper
107
DiGCN
0.7973 ±0.0057
This paper
110
MagNet
0.7959 ±0.0039
This paper
118
DiGCN-Appr
0.7931 ±0.0034
This paper
119
MGC
0.7926 ±0.0048
This paper
132
NSTE
0.7905 ±0.0053
This paper
144
DIMPA
0.7888 ±0.0042
This paper
168
DGCN
0.7825 ±0.0061
This paper
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #98 97 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #98 97 places worse
paper 0.4580 ±0.0010
paper 0.4580 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.2030 Δ today 0.3330
2
GAMLP
actual #2 vs paper #88 86 places worse
0.7036 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #88 86 places worse
paper 0.5680 ±0.0030
paper 0.5680 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.1356
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
16
UniMP
actual #16 vs paper #88 72 places worse
0.6736 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #88 72 places worse
paper 0.5470 ±0.0030
paper 0.5470 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.1266
35
SAGE
actual #35 vs paper #88 53 places worse
0.6644 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #88 53 places worse
paper 0.5520 ±0.0020
paper 0.5520 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.1124
38
SIGN
actual #38 vs paper #91 53 places worse
0.6636 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #91 53 places worse
paper 0.5250 ±0.0020
52
GraphSAGE
0.6580
57
LightDiC
0.6540 ±0.0020
This paper
59
GBP
actual #59 vs paper #95 36 places worse
0.6524 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #59 vs paper #95 36 places worse
paper 0.4830 ±0.0020
paper 0.4830 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.1694
64
S^2GC
actual #64 vs paper #94 30 places worse
0.6473 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #94 30 places worse
paper 0.5060 ±0.0010
paper 0.5060 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.1413
95
MLP
actual #95 vs paper #98 3 places worse
0.4960 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #95 vs paper #98 3 places worse
paper 0.4720 ±0.0030
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