WWW 2024

Optimizing Polynomial Graph Filters: A Novel Adaptive Krylov Subspace Approach

Keke Huang, Wencai Cao, Hoang Ta, Xiaokui Xiao, Pietro Li\`o

Main figure for Optimizing Polynomial Graph Filters: A Novel Adaptive Krylov Subspace Approach

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), known as spectral graph filters, find a wide range of applications in web networks. To bypass eigendecomposition, polynomial graph filters are proposed to approximate graph filters by leveraging various polynomial bases for filter training. However, no existing studies have explored the diverse polynomial graph filters from a unified perspective for optimization. In this paper, we first unify polynomial graph filters, as well as the optimal filters of identical degrees into the Krylov subspace of the same order, thus providing equivalent expressive power theoretically. Next, we investigate the asymptotic convergence property of polynomials from the unified Krylov subspace perspective, revealing their limited adaptability in graphs with varying heterophily degrees. Inspired by those facts, we design a novel adaptive Krylov subspace approach to optimize polynomial bases with provable controllability over the graph spectrum so as to adapt various heterophily graphs. Subsequently, we propose AdaptKry, an optimized polynomial graph filter utilizing bases from the adaptive Krylov subspaces. Meanwhile, in light of the diverse spectral properties of complex graphs, we extend AdaptKry by leveraging multiple adaptive Krylov bases without incurring extra training costs. As a consequence, extended AdaptKry is able to capture the intricate characteristics of graphs and provide insights into their inherent complexity. We conduct extensive experiments across a series of real-world datasets. The experimental results demonstrate the superior filtering capability of AdaptKry, as well as the optimized efficacy of the adaptive Krylov basis. The code of AdaptKry is accessed at.

Proposed method: AdaptKry

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
8
AdaptKry
0.4270 ±0.0114
This paper
11
OptBasisGNN
0.4239 ±0.0052
This paper
21
BernNet
actual #21 vs paper #22 1 place worse
0.4179 ±0.0101
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #22 1 place worse
paper 0.4171 ±0.0112

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4171 ±0.0112 Δ at pub 0.0008 Δ today 0.0008
22
ChebNetII
0.4175 ±0.0107
This paper
33
SIGN
actual #33 vs paper #33
0.4122 ±0.0096
actual #33 vs paper #33
paper 0.4122 ±0.0096
34
JacobiConv
0.4117 ±0.0064
This paper
40
EvenNet
actual #40 vs paper #41 1 place worse
0.4048 ±0.0062
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #41 1 place worse
paper 0.4036 ±0.0065

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4036 ±0.0065 Δ at pub 0.0012
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
53
GPR-GNN
actual #53 vs paper #53
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #53
paper 0.3991 ±0.0062

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3991 ±0.0062 Δ today 0.0001
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
88
ChebNet
actual #88 vs paper #114 26 places worse
0.3802 ±0.0023
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #114 26 places worse
paper 0.3742 ±0.0058

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3742 ±0.0058 Δ at pub 0.0060
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #284 149 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #284 149 places worse
paper 0.3326 ±0.0115
paper 0.3326 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.0364
237
SGC
actual #237 vs paper #252 15 places worse
0.3490 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #237 vs paper #252 15 places worse
paper 0.3446 ±0.0067

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.3446 ±0.0067 Δ at pub 0.0044
284
ASGC
0.3341 ±0.0080
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
10
GPR-GNN
actual #10 vs paper #88 78 places worse
0.5043 ±0.0189
actual #10 vs paper #88 78 places worse
paper 0.5043 ±0.0189
35
OptBasisGNN
0.6362 ±0.0076
This paper
36
AdaptKry
0.6331 ±0.0076
This paper
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #110 64 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #110 64 places worse
paper 0.4587 ±0.0088
paper 0.4587 ±0.0088 Δ at pub 0.1480
55
ASGC
0.5791 ±0.0089
This paper
56
ChebNetII
0.5772 ±0.0059
This paper
60
JacobiConv
0.5738 ±0.0125
This paper
80
EvenNet
0.5271 ±0.0085
This paper
81
SGC
actual #81 vs paper #260 179 places worse
0.5230 ±0.0230
best reported
actual #81 vs paper #260 179 places worse
paper 0.2575 ±0.0107
paper 0.2575 ±0.0107 Δ at pub 0.2655
86
BernNet
actual #86 vs paper #86
0.5139 ±0.0092
actual #86 vs paper #86
paper 0.5139 ±0.0092

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.5139 ±0.0092 Δ at pub 0.0004
112
SIGN
actual #112 vs paper #112
0.4559 ±0.0140
actual #112 vs paper #112
paper 0.4559 ±0.0140
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
125
ChebNet
actual #125 vs paper #155 30 places worse
0.4081 ±0.0042
actual #125 vs paper #155 30 places worse
paper 0.4081 ±0.0042

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.4081 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0026 Δ today 0.0305
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DC-GNN
0.8669 ±0.0022
2
M2M-GNN
0.8594 ±0.0040
3
GloGNN
0.8574 ±0.0042
5
AdaptKry
0.8497 ±0.0036
This paper
7
ChebNetII
0.8486 ±0.0033
This paper
8
OptBasisGNN
0.8485 ±0.0039
This paper
20
GPR-GNN
0.8354 ±0.0032
This paper
23
BernNet
0.8326 ±0.0029
This paper
29
GIN
0.8268 ±0.0032
30
ChebNet
0.8259 ±0.0031
This paper
31
GCN
0.8247 ±0.0027
This paper
34
SIGN
0.8213 ±0.0028
This paper
37
SGC
0.8144 ±0.0015
This paper
51
MLP
0.7534 ±0.0064
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