WWW 2024

Disentangled Condensation for Large-scale Graphs

Zhenbang Xiao, Yu Wang, Shunyu Liu, Bingde Hu, Huiqiong Wang, Mingli Song, Tongya Zheng

Main figure for Disentangled Condensation for Large-scale Graphs

Abstract

Graph condensation has emerged as an intriguing technique to save the expensive training costs of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) by substituting a condensed small graph with the original graph. Despite the promising results achieved, previous methods usually employ an entangled paradigm of redundant parameters (nodes, edges, GNNs), which incurs complex joint optimization during condensation. This paradigm has considerably impeded the scalability of graph condensation, making it challenging to condense extremely large-scale graphs and generate high-fidelity condensed graphs. Therefore, we propose to disentangle the condensation process into a two-stage GNN-free paradigm, independently condensing nodes and generating edges while eliminating the need to optimize GNNs at the same time. The node condensation module avoids the complexity of GNNs by focusing on node feature alignment with anchors of the original graph, while the edge translation module constructs the edges of the condensed nodes by transferring the original structure knowledge with neighborhood anchors. This simple yet effective approach achieves at least 10 times faster than state-of-the-art methods with comparable accuracy on medium-scale graphs. Moreover, the proposed DisCo can successfully scale up to the Ogbn-papers100M graph containing over 100 million nodes with flexible reduction rates and improves performance on the second-largest Ogbn-products dataset by over 5\ Extensive downstream tasks and ablation study on five common datasets further demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed DisCo framework. Our code is available at.

Proposed method: DisCo

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

Reddit

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GAP-EDP
0.9870 ±0.0003
2
NE-ASGCN
0.9758 ±0.0027
3
HSGT
0.9730 ±0.0024
21
GraphSAGE
0.9653 ±0.0011
89
Whole Dataset
0.9350 ±0.0010
This paper
105
SGDD
actual #105 vs paper #140 35 places worse
0.9180 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #105 vs paper #140 35 places worse
paper 0.8670 ±0.0080
paper 0.8670 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0510
111
DisCo
0.9130 ±0.0030
This paper
113
Random
actual #113 vs paper #154 41 places worse
0.9110
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #154 41 places worse
paper 0.6550 ±0.0250
120
GCond
actual #120 vs paper #146 26 places worse
0.9030 ±0.0310
best reported
actual #120 vs paper #146 26 places worse
paper 0.8240 ±0.0100
paper 0.8240 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0723 Δ today 0.0790
124
GCDM
actual #124 vs paper #148 24 places worse
0.8970 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #148 24 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.0310
125
SFGC
actual #125 vs paper #133 8 places worse
0.8970 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #125 vs paper #133 8 places worse
paper 0.8860 ±0.0110

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8860 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0110 Δ today 0.0110
147
MLP
0.8240 ±0.0010
153
Herding
actual #153 vs paper #153
0.7140 ±0.0160
actual #153 vs paper #153
paper 0.7140 ±0.0160
paper 0.7140 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.1554
161
K-Center
actual #161 vs paper #161
0.5740 ±0.0180
actual #161 vs paper #161
paper 0.5740 ±0.0180

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5740 ±0.0180 Δ at pub 0.0204

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
298
Whole Dataset
0.7400 ±0.0010
This paper
334
Random
actual #334 vs paper #364 30 places worse
0.7040 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #334 vs paper #364 30 places worse
paper 0.6300 ±0.0120
paper 0.6300 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0740
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
359
DisCo
0.6460 ±0.0080
This paper
360
SFGC
0.6440 ±0.0040
This paper
365
K-Center
0.6240 ±0.0050
This paper
375
SGDD
0.5930 ±0.0170
This paper
376
Herding
0.5910 ±0.0010
This paper
380
GCond
0.5640 ±0.0100
This paper
385
GCDM
0.5350 ±0.0110
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
0.7910
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
76
DisCo
0.6330
This paper
73
Random
actual #73 vs paper #73
0.6330
actual #73 vs paper #73
paper 0.6330
74
Herding
0.6330
This paper
75
K-Center
0.6330
This paper
95
MLP
0.4960 ±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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere