Two Trades are not Baffled: Condensing Graph via Crafting Rational Gradient Matching

Tianle Zhang, Yuchen Zhang, Kun Wang, Kai Wang, Beining Yang, Kaipeng Zhang, Wenqi Shao, Ping Liu, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Yang You

Main figure for Two Trades are not Baffled: Condensing Graph via Crafting Rational Gradient Matching

Abstract

Training on large-scale graphs has achieved remarkable results in graph representation learning, but its cost and storage have raised growing concerns. As one of the most promising directions, graph condensation methods address these issues by employing gradient matching, aiming to condense the full graph into a more concise yet information-rich synthetic set. Though encouraging, these strategies primarily emphasize matching directions of the gradients, which leads to deviations in the training trajectories. Such deviations are further magnified by the differences between the condensation and evaluation phases, culminating in accumulated errors, which detrimentally affect the performance of the condensed graphs. In light of this, we propose a novel graph condensation method named CrafTing RationaL trajectory (CTRL), which offers an optimized starting point closer to the original dataset's feature distribution and a more refined strategy for gradient matching. Theoretically, CTRL can effectively neutralize the impact of accumulated errors on the performance of condensed graphs. We provide extensive experiments on various graph datasets and downstream tasks to support the effectiveness of CTRL.

Proposed method: CTRL

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
21
GCN
0.9004
523
Random
actual #523 vs paper #741 218 places worse
0.8209 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #523 vs paper #741 218 places worse
paper 0.7680 ±0.0010
paper 0.7680 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0529
541
CTRL
0.8190 ±0.0010
This paper
560
SFGC
actual #560 vs paper #560
0.8170 ±0.0050
actual #560 vs paper #560
paper 0.8170 ±0.0050
paper 0.8170 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.1740
615
GCond
actual #615 vs paper #654 39 places worse
0.8010 ±0.0060
actual #615 vs paper #654 39 places worse
paper 0.8010 ±0.0060
paper 0.8010 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0734
724
MLP
0.7768
742
Herding
0.7680 ±0.0010
This paper
743
K-Center
0.7670 ±0.0010
This paper
817
Coarsening
0.7060 ±0.0010
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
277
CTRL
0.7350 ±0.0010
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
415
SFGC
actual #415 vs paper #519 104 places worse
0.7240 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #519 104 places worse
paper 0.7140 ±0.0050
best today: Simple Graph Condensation (2024)
paper 0.7140 ±0.0050 Δ today 0.0100
572
GCond
actual #572 vs paper #588 16 places worse
0.7080 ±0.0450
best reported
actual #572 vs paper #588 16 places worse
paper 0.7050 ±0.0120

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7050 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0010 Δ today 0.0030
593
Random
actual #593 vs paper #855 262 places worse
0.7049 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #593 vs paper #855 262 places worse
paper 0.5440 ±0.0440
paper 0.5440 ±0.0440 Δ at pub 0.1609
650
K-Center
actual #650 vs paper #863 213 places worse
0.5240 ±0.0280
actual #650 vs paper #863 213 places worse
paper 0.5240 ±0.0280
best today: Simple Graph Condensation (2024)
paper 0.5240 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.1837 Δ today 0.1670
651
Herding
actual #651 vs paper #848 197 places worse
0.5710 ±0.0150
actual #651 vs paper #848 197 places worse
paper 0.5710 ±0.0150
best today: Simple Graph Condensation (2024)
paper 0.5710 ±0.0150 Δ at pub 0.2579 Δ today 0.1190
726
DC-Graph
0.6680 ±0.0150
This paper
864
Coarsening
0.5220 ±0.0040
This paper

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
303
Whole Dataset
0.8863 ±0.0144
This paper
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
0.9727
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
358
Random
actual #358 vs paper #562 204 places worse
0.7700 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #358 vs paper #562 204 places worse
paper 0.5851 ±0.0173
paper 0.5851 ±0.0173 Δ at pub 0.1849
464
Whole Dataset
0.7170 ±0.0020
This paper
551
CTRL
0.6014 ±0.0173
This paper
552
DosCond
0.6007 ±0.0158
This paper
561
Herding
0.5894 ±0.0083
This paper
567
K-Center
0.5658 ±0.0308
This paper
576
DCG
0.5217 ±0.0190
This paper

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
109
GIN
0.7780 ±0.0182
214
Whole Dataset
0.7570 ±0.0080
This paper
263
CTRL
0.7370 ±0.0060
This paper
271
DosCond
0.7310 ±0.0040
This paper
277
DCG
actual #277 vs paper #277
0.7280 ±0.0020
actual #277 vs paper #277
paper 0.7280 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7280 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0100
280
Herding
actual #280 vs paper #280
0.7250 ±0.0060
actual #280 vs paper #280
paper 0.7250 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7250 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0040
281
K-Center
actual #281 vs paper #281
0.7250 ±0.0060
actual #281 vs paper #281
paper 0.7250 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7250 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0040
284
Random
actual #284 vs paper #284
0.7210 ±0.0140
actual #284 vs paper #284
paper 0.7210 ±0.0140

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7210 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0020

ogbg-molpcba

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ROC-AUC; the dataset default is AP. Values below use ROC-AUC only.

Sorted by ROC-AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
PrunE
0.8159 ±0.0535
2
EGTAS
0.7919 ±0.0137
3
UGTs
0.7840
12
GIN
0.7042 ±0.0478
29
CTRL
0.6500 ±0.0050
This paper
31
Whole Dataset
0.6460 ±0.0040
This paper
33
DosCond
0.6200 ±0.0070
This paper
34
Herding
0.6170 ±0.0030
This paper
35
Random
0.6060 ±0.0200
This paper
36
DCG
0.5790 ±0.0320
This paper
37
K-Center
0.5760 ±0.0190
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 Improved at pub — later paper surpassed this result Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere