ADEdgeDrop: Adversarial Edge Dropping for Robust Graph Neural Networks

Zhaoliang Chen, Zhihao Wu, Ylli Sadikaj, Claudia Plant, Hong-Ning Dai, Shiping Wang, Wenzhong Guo

Main figure for ADEdgeDrop: Adversarial Edge Dropping for Robust Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Although Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have exhibited the powerful ability to gather graph-structured information from neighborhood nodes via various message-passing mechanisms, the performance of GNNs is limited by poor generalization and fragile robustness caused by noisy and redundant graph data. As a prominent solution, Graph Augmentation Learning (GAL) has recently received increasing attention in the literature. Among the existing GAL approaches, edge-dropping methods that randomly remove edges from a graph during training are effective techniques to improve the robustness of GNNs. However, randomly dropping edges often results in bypassing critical edges. Consequently, the effectiveness of message passing is weakened. In this paper, we propose a novel adversarial edge-dropping method (ADEdgeDrop) that leverages an adversarial edge predictor guiding the removal of edges, which can be flexibly incorporated into diverse GNN backbones. Employing an adversarial training framework, the edge predictor utilizes the line graph transformed from the original graph to estimate the edges to be dropped, which improves the interpretability of the edge-dropping method. The proposed ADEdgeDrop is optimized alternately by stochastic gradient descent and projected gradient descent. Comprehensive experiments on eight graph benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed ADEdgeDrop outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across various GNN backbones, demonstrating improved generalization and robustness.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
632
GCN ADEdgeDrop
0.7852 ±0.0016
This paper
637
GCN DropEdge
actual #637 vs paper #664 27 places worse
0.7850 ±0.0430
best reported
actual #637 vs paper #664 27 places worse
paper 0.7814 ±0.0074

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7814 ±0.0074 Δ at pub 0.0036
644
GCN DropMessage
0.7849 ±0.0032
This paper
667
GraphSAGE ADEdgeDrop
0.7812 ±0.0065
This paper
672
GraphSAGE DropMessage
0.7808 ±0.0039
This paper
711
GraphSAGE DropEdge++
0.7752 ±0.0044
This paper
722
GraphSage Original
0.7730 ±0.0081
This paper
730
GCN Original
0.7714 ±0.0044
This paper
731
GAT DropMessage
0.7714 ±0.0046
This paper
743
GCN DropNode
0.7692 ±0.0050
This paper
744
GAT ADEdgeDrop
0.7686 ±0.0103
This paper
749
GAT DropEdge++
0.7672 ±0.0076
This paper
762
GAT FLAG
0.7630 ±0.0046
This paper
763
GraphSAGE DropNode
0.7628 ±0.0176
This paper
765
GAT DropNode
0.7618 ±0.0035
This paper
774
GAT Original
0.7594 ±0.0118
This paper
798
GCN FLAG
0.7508 ±0.0068
This paper
810
GraphSAGE FLAG
0.7404 ±0.0129
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
423
GAT ADEdgeDrop
0.2560 ±0.0137
This paper
435
GraphSAGE ADEdgeDrop
0.2506 ±0.0225
This paper
444
GCN DropEdge
0.2384 ±0.0122
This paper
446
GAT DropMessage
0.2378 ±0.0154
This paper
447
GraphSAGE GAUG-O
0.2376 ±0.0104
This paper
449
GAT DropEdge++
0.2369 ±0.0123
This paper
451
GraphSAGE DropEdge++
0.2349 ±0.0211
This paper
454
GAT GAUG-O
0.2305 ±0.0134
This paper
455
GCN ADEdgeDrop
0.2304 ±0.0252
This paper
456
GraphSage Original
0.2304 ±0.0163
This paper
458
GAT Original
0.2294 ±0.0163
This paper
459
GCN GAUG-O
0.2290 ±0.0044
This paper
464
GAT DropNode
0.2240 ±0.0187
This paper
467
GraphSAGE FLAG
0.2222 ±0.0098
This paper
469
GCN DropNode
0.2218 ±0.0091
This paper
471
GCN DropMessage
0.2194 ±0.0095
This paper
472
GraphSAGE DropNode
0.2186 ±0.0045
This paper
473
GAT FLAG
0.2180 ±0.0072
This paper
474
GraphSAGE DropMessage
0.2176 ±0.0237
This paper
477
GCN FLAG
0.2142 ±0.0052
This paper
482
GCN Original
0.2076 ±0.0188
This paper

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

ACM

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SignGT
0.9545 ±0.0049
2
NodeFormer
0.9493 ±0.0035
3
FAGCN
0.9487 ±0.0059
34
GCN
0.9233 ±0.0038
52
ADEdgeDrop
0.8926 ±0.0008
This paper
53
DropEdge
0.8894 ±0.0051
This paper
54
GAuG-O
0.8880 ±0.0109
This paper
56
FLAG
0.8828 ±0.0035
This paper
58
Original
0.8784 ±0.0019
This paper
59
DropNode
0.8762 ±0.0043
This paper
60
DropMessage
0.8762 ±0.0213
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers)