WWW 2024

Polynomial Selection in Spectral Graph Neural Networks: An Error-Sum of Function Slices Approach

Guoming Li, Jian Yang, Shangsong Liang, Dongsheng Luo

Main figure for Polynomial Selection in Spectral Graph Neural Networks: An Error-Sum of Function Slices Approach

Abstract

Spectral graph neural networks are proposed to harness spectral information inherent in graph-structured data through the application of polynomial-defined graph filters, recently achieving notable success in graph-based web applications. Existing studies reveal that various polynomial choices greatly impact spectral GNN performance, underscoring the importance of polynomial selection. However, this selection process remains a critical and unresolved challenge. Although prior work suggests a connection between the approximation capabilities of polynomials and the efficacy of spectral GNNs, there is a lack of theoretical insights into this relationship, rendering polynomial selection a largely heuristic process. To address the issue, this paper examines polynomial selection from an error-sum of function slices perspective. Inspired by the conventional signal decomposition, we represent graph filters as a sum of disjoint function slices. Building on this, we then bridge the polynomial capability and spectral GNN efficacy by proving that the construction error of graph convolution layer is bounded by the sum of polynomial approximation errors on function slices. This result leads us to develop an advanced filter based on trigonometric polynomials, a widely adopted option for approximating narrow signal slices. The proposed filter remains provable parameter efficiency, with a novel Taylor-based parameter decomposition that achieves streamlined, effective implementation. With this foundation, we propose TFGNN, a scalable spectral GNN operating in a decoupled paradigm. We validate the efficacy of TFGNN via benchmark node classification tasks, along with an example graph anomaly detection application to show its practical utility.

Proposed method: TFGNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 10 baseline values reported too low

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
actual #21 vs paper #169 148 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #169 148 places worse
paper 0.8648 ±0.0040
paper 0.8648 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0356
38
TFGNN
0.8921 ±0.0040
This paper
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
45
GCNII
actual #45 vs paper #159 114 places worse
0.8893 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #159 114 places worse
paper 0.8677 ±0.0020
best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023)
paper 0.8677 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0216 Δ today 0.0216
51
H2GCN
actual #51 vs paper #128 77 places worse
0.8882 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #51 vs paper #128 77 places worse
paper 0.8733 ±0.0060
paper 0.8733 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0054 Δ today 0.0149
64
JacobiConv
0.8853 ±0.0080
This paper
65
BernNet
actual #65 vs paper #118 53 places worse
0.8852 ±0.0095
best reported
actual #65 vs paper #118 53 places worse
paper 0.8757 ±0.0040
best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8757 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0095 Δ today 0.0095
72
OptBasis
0.8835 ±0.0060
This paper
73
UniFilter
0.8831 ±0.0070
This paper
77
GPRGNN
actual #77 vs paper #77
0.8826 ±0.0050
actual #77 vs paper #77
paper 0.8826 ±0.0050

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8826 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0128
81
AdaptKry
0.8823 ±0.0070
This paper
85
Specformer
0.8819 ±0.0060
This paper
86
ChebNetII
0.8817 ±0.0040
This paper
88
GloGNN
0.8812 ±0.0040
This paper
91
NFGNN
0.8806 ±0.0040
This paper
120
OrderGNN
0.8755 ±0.0020
This paper
122
LRGNN
0.8748 ±0.0030
This paper
133
ACMGCN
0.8721 ±0.0040
This paper
139
ChebNet
actual #139 vs paper #153 14 places worse
0.8712 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #153 14 places worse
paper 0.8683 ±0.0070

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8683 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0029
243
LINKX
actual #243 vs paper #251 8 places worse
0.8464 ±0.0113
best reported
actual #243 vs paper #251 8 places worse
paper 0.8451 ±0.0060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8451 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0013 Δ today 0.0013
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
16
H2GCN
actual #16 vs paper #136 120 places worse
0.9361 ±0.0013
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #136 120 places worse
paper 0.8839 ±0.0060
paper 0.8839 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0110 Δ today 0.0522
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #194 176 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #194 176 places worse
paper 0.8729 ±0.0020
58
GCNII
actual #58 vs paper #114 56 places worse
0.9030 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #114 56 places worse
paper 0.8886 ±0.0040
72
TFGNN
0.9000 ±0.0020
This paper
85
GloGNN
actual #85 vs paper #115 30 places worse
0.8960 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #85 vs paper #115 30 places worse
paper 0.8883 ±0.0020
paper 0.8883 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0077
87
JacobiConv
0.8951 ±0.0020
This paper
89
Specformer
actual #89 vs paper #118 29 places worse
0.8947 ±0.0048
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #118 29 places worse
paper 0.8874 ±0.0020
paper 0.8874 ±0.0020 Δ today 0.0073
92
OptBasis
0.8938 ±0.0030
This paper
93
BernNet
actual #93 vs paper #132 39 places worse
0.8933 ±0.0007
best reported
actual #93 vs paper #132 39 places worse
paper 0.8848 ±0.0030
paper 0.8848 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0085
94
UniFilter
0.8930 ±0.0040
This paper
101
GPRGNN
actual #101 vs paper #115 14 places worse
0.8911 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #115 14 places worse
paper 0.8881 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8881 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0030
110
ChebNetII
0.8898 ±0.0040
This paper
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
124
LRGNN
0.8865 ±0.0040
This paper
134
NFGNN
0.8843 ±0.0040
This paper
137
AdaptKry
0.8838 ±0.0060
This paper
143
OrderGNN
0.8831 ±0.0030
This paper
162
LINKX
actual #162 vs paper #226 64 places worse
0.8786 ±0.0077
best reported
actual #162 vs paper #226 64 places worse
paper 0.8636 ±0.0060
192
ACMGCN
0.8737 ±0.0040
This paper
199
ChebNet
actual #199 vs paper #233 34 places worse
0.8718 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #199 vs paper #233 34 places worse
paper 0.8592 ±0.0050
paper 0.8592 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0126
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
SGC
actual #1 vs paper #69 68 places worse
0.7910
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #69 68 places worse
paper 0.6402 ±0.0020
paper 0.6402 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.1508
2
GAMLP
0.7036 ±0.0002
3
GLEM-GNN
0.7036 ±0.0002
7
TFGNN
0.6865 ±0.0020
This paper
21
ChebNetII
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.6718 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.6711 ±0.0020

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6711 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0007 Δ today 0.0007
23
AdaptKry
0.6707 ±0.0020
This paper
25
OptBasis
0.6703 ±0.0030
This paper
28
UniFilter
0.6679 ±0.0030
This paper
35
SAGE
0.6644 ±0.0017
37
NFGNN
0.6638 ±0.0020
This paper
45
GPRGNN
0.6613 ±0.0020
This paper
47
BernNet
0.6608 ±0.0020
This paper
56
JacobiConv
0.6545 ±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