ICLR 2024

Graph Parsing Networks

Yunchong Song, Siyuan Huang, Xinbing Wang, Cheng Zhou, Zhouhan Lin

Main figure for Graph Parsing Networks

Abstract

Graph pooling compresses graph information into a compact representation. State-of-the-art graph pooling methods follow a hierarchical approach, which reduces the graph size step-by-step. These methods must balance memory efficiency with preserving node information, depending on whether they use node dropping or node clustering. Additionally, fixed pooling ratios or numbers of pooling layers are predefined for all graphs, which prevents personalized pooling structures from being captured for each individual graph. In this work, inspired by bottom-up grammar induction, we propose an efficient graph parsing algorithm to infer the pooling structure, which then drives graph pooling. The resulting Graph Parsing Network (GPN) adaptively learns personalized pooling structure for each individual graph. GPN benefits from the discrete assignments generated by the graph parsing algorithm, allowing good memory efficiency while preserving node information intact. Experimental results on standard benchmarks demonstrate that GPN outperforms state-of-the-art graph pooling methods in graph classification tasks while being able to achieve competitive performance in node classification tasks. We also conduct a graph reconstruction task to show GPN's ability to preserve node information and measure both memory and time efficiency through relevant tests.

Proposed method: GPN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 12 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
0.9934
3
GCN
actual #3 vs paper #439 436 places worse
0.9727
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #439 436 places worse
paper 0.7392 ±0.0043
paper 0.7392 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.2335
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
184
GPN
0.8087 ±0.0043
This paper
226
GMT
actual #226 vs paper #479 253 places worse
0.7990 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #226 vs paper #479 253 places worse
paper 0.7035 ±0.0065
paper 0.7035 ±0.0065 Δ at pub 0.0600 Δ today 0.0955
229
HoscPool
actual #229 vs paper #280 51 places worse
0.7990 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #229 vs paper #280 51 places worse
paper 0.7869 ±0.0045

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7869 ±0.0045 Δ at pub 0.0121
254
SEP
actual #254 vs paper #316 62 places worse
0.7935 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #254 vs paper #316 62 places worse
paper 0.7809 ±0.0047
paper 0.7809 ±0.0047 Δ today 0.0126
267
EdgePool
actual #267 vs paper #267
0.7893 ±0.0222
actual #267 vs paper #267
paper 0.7893 ±0.0222

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7893 ±0.0222 Δ at pub 0.0114
269
SPGP
0.7890 ±0.0027
This paper
299
HGP-SL
actual #299 vs paper #396 97 places worse
0.7845 ±0.0077
best reported
actual #299 vs paper #396 97 places worse
paper 0.7597 ±0.0040
paper 0.7597 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0248
308
Attention
actual #308 vs paper #497 189 places worse
0.7822 ±0.0132
best reported
actual #308 vs paper #497 189 places worse
paper 0.6900 ±0.0049
paper 0.6900 ±0.0049 Δ at pub 0.0922
368
MINCUTPOOL
actual #368 vs paper #396 28 places worse
0.7680 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #368 vs paper #396 28 places worse
paper 0.7588 ±0.0057

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7588 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0092
468
GSAPool
actual #468 vs paper #473 5 places worse
0.7133 ±0.0092
best reported
actual #468 vs paper #473 5 places worse
paper 0.7098 ±0.0120

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7098 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0035

OGB

ogbg-molpcba

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
StructPosGSSL-FA
0.2745 ±0.0195
2
StructPosGSSL-SA
0.2710 ±0.0165
3
GIN+VN
0.2703 ±0.0023
4
GPN
0.2665 ±0.0031
This paper
6
SPGP
0.2395 ±0.0097
This paper
7
GMT
0.2370 ±0.0050
This paper
8
EdgePool
0.2348 ±0.0041
This paper
9
GCN
0.2020 ±0.0024
This paper
10
HGP-SL
0.1864 ±0.0028
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
38
GCNII
actual #38 vs paper #114 76 places worse
0.4082 ±0.0179
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #114 76 places worse
paper 0.3744 ±0.0130
paper 0.3744 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0117 Δ today 0.0338
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #158 116 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #158 116 places worse
paper 0.3653 ±0.0070
paper 0.3653 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0373
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #247 195 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #247 195 places worse
paper 0.3463 ±0.0122
paper 0.3463 ±0.0122 Δ at pub 0.0529 Δ today 0.0529
62
GGCN
actual #62 vs paper #113 51 places worse
0.3929 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #113 51 places worse
paper 0.3754 ±0.0156

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3754 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.0027 Δ today 0.0175
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
paper 0.3423 ±0.0099
paper 0.3423 ±0.0099 Δ at pub 0.0476
71
H2GCN
actual #71 vs paper #198 127 places worse
0.3885 ±0.0117
best reported
actual #71 vs paper #198 127 places worse
paper 0.3570 ±0.0100
paper 0.3570 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0270 Δ today 0.0315
86
GPN
0.3811 ±0.0123
This paper
87
Geom-GCN
actual #87 vs paper #308 221 places worse
0.3810
best reported
actual #87 vs paper #308 221 places worse
paper 0.3159 ±0.0115
paper 0.3159 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0651
100
NSD
actual #100 vs paper #100
0.3781 ±0.0115
actual #100 vs paper #100
paper 0.3781 ±0.0115

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3781 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0002
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #408 273 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #408 273 places worse
paper 0.2732 ±0.0110
paper 0.2732 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0958
162
MixHop
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
0.3648 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #297 135 places worse
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234
paper 0.3222 ±0.0234 Δ at pub 0.0426
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #406 224 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #406 224 places worse
paper 0.2744 ±0.0089
paper 0.2744 ±0.0089 Δ at pub 0.0861
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
408
PairNorm
0.2740 ±0.0124
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