WWW 2024

Rethinking Node-wise Propagation for Large-scale Graph Learning

Xunkai Li, Jingyuan Ma, Zhengyu Wu, Daohan Su, Wentao Zhang, Rong-Hua Li, Guoren Wang

Main figure for Rethinking Node-wise Propagation for Large-scale Graph Learning

Abstract

Scalable graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a promising technique, which exhibits superior predictive performance and high running efficiency across numerous large-scale graph-based web applications. However, (i) Most scalable GNNs tend to treat all nodes with the same propagation rules, neglecting their topological uniqueness; (ii) Existing node-wise propagation optimization strategies are insufficient on web-scale graphs with intricate topology, where a full portrayal of nodes' local properties is required. Intuitively, different nodes in web-scale graphs possess distinct topological roles, and therefore propagating them indiscriminately or neglect local contexts may compromise the quality of node representations. To address the above issues, we propose Adaptive Topology-aware Propagation (ATP), which reduces potential high-bias propagation and extracts structural patterns of each node in a scalable manner to improve running efficiency and predictive performance. Remarkably, ATP is crafted to be a plug-and-play node-wise propagation optimization strategy, allowing for offline execution independent of the graph learning process in a new perspective. Therefore, this approach can be seamlessly integrated into most scalable GNNs while remain orthogonal to existing node-wise propagation optimization strategies. Extensive experiments on 12 datasets have demonstrated the effectiveness of ATP.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 4 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
0.8933
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #236 230 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #236 230 places worse
paper 0.7660 ±0.0020
13
GCNII
actual #13 vs paper #167 154 places worse
0.8738
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #167 154 places worse
paper 0.7940 ±0.0040
47
ShaDow+ATP
0.8480 ±0.0020
This paper
64
GraphSAINT
actual #64 vs paper #140 76 places worse
0.8383 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #64 vs paper #140 76 places worse
paper 0.8030 ±0.0030
paper 0.8030 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0353
69
GraphSAINT+ATP
0.8370 ±0.0040
This paper
70
Cluster-GCN+ATP
0.8360 ±0.0020
This paper
73
GCNII+ATP
0.8350 ±0.0030
This paper
94
SGC
actual #94 vs paper #244 150 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #94 vs paper #244 150 places worse
paper 0.7592 ±0.0007
paper 0.7592 ±0.0007 Δ at pub 0.0628
135
shaDow
0.8060 ±0.0010
This paper
141
GCN+ATP
0.8030 ±0.0020
This paper
191
Cluster-GCN
actual #191 vs paper #197 6 places worse
0.7897
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #197 6 places worse
paper 0.7880 ±0.0020
paper 0.7880 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0017
211
*GraphSAGE
0.7850 ±0.0010
This paper
312
*GATv2
0.7280 ±0.0020
This paper
326
*GAT
0.7150 ±0.0010
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #67 66 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #67 66 places worse
paper 0.6438 ±0.0015
paper 0.6438 ±0.0015 Δ at pub 0.0172 Δ today 0.1472
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
4
ShaDow+ATP
0.6980 ±0.0010
This paper
20
GraphSAINT+ATP
0.6720 ±0.0020
This paper
22
shaDow
0.6710 ±0.0020
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
36
Cluster-GCN+ATP
0.6640 ±0.0020
This paper
61
*GraphSAGE
0.6510 ±0.0020
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere