E2GNN: Efficient Graph Neural Network Ensembles for Semi-Supervised Classification

Xin Zhang, D. Zha, Qiaoyu Tan

Main figure for E2GNN: Efficient Graph Neural Network Ensembles for Semi-Supervised Classification

Abstract

This work studies ensemble learning for graph neural networks (GNNs) under the popular semi-supervised setting. Ensemble learning has shown superiority in improving the accuracy and robustness of traditional machine learning by combing the outputs of multiple weak learners. However, adopting a similar idea to integrate different GNN models is challenging because of two reasons. First, GNN is notorious for its poor inference ability, so naively assembling multiple GNN models would deteriorate the inference efficiency. Second, when GNN models are trained with few labeled nodes, their performance are limited. In this case, the vanilla ensemble approach, e.g., majority vote, may be sub-optimal since most base models, i.e., GNNs, may make the wrong predictions. To this end, in this paper, we propose an efficient ensemble learner--E2GNN to assemble multiple GNNs in a learnable way by leveraging both labeled and unlabeled nodes. Specifically, we first pre-train different GNN models on a given data scenario according to the labeled nodes. Next, instead of directly combing their outputs for label inference, we train a simple multi-layer perceptron--MLP model to mimic their predictions on both labeled and unlabeled nodes. Then the unified MLP model is deployed to infer labels for unlabeled or new nodes. Since the predictions of unlabeled nodes from different GNN models may be incorrect, we develop a reinforced discriminator to effectively filter out those wrongly predicted nodes to boost the performance of MLP. By doing this, we suggest a principled approach to tackle the inference issues of GNN ensembles and maintain the merit of ensemble learning: improved performance. Comprehensive experiments over both transductive and inductive settings, across different GNN backbones and 8 benchmark datasets, demonstrate the superiority of E2GNN. Notably, our E2GNN shows good robustness towards feature- and topology-level perturbations. The code is anonymously released in

Proposed method: E2GNN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 7 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 #339 318 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #339 318 places worse
paper 0.8363 ±0.0006
paper 0.8363 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.0641
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #536 313 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #536 313 places worse
paper 0.8191 ±0.0047
348
GLNN
actual #348 vs paper #465 117 places worse
0.8360 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #348 vs paper #465 117 places worse
paper 0.8255 ±0.0084

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8255 ±0.0084 Δ at pub 0.0105
361
E2GNN
0.8353 ±0.0019
This paper
362
MLPs
0.8353 ±0.0019
This paper
485
GEENI
0.8236 ±0.0028
This paper
502
EKD-W
0.8228 ±0.0050
This paper
517
GNNE
0.8211 ±0.0034
This paper
536
EKD-U
0.8198 ±0.0082
This paper
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
18
GCN
actual #18 vs paper #339 321 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #339 321 places worse
paper 0.8171 ±0.0013
116
SAGE
actual #116 vs paper #745 629 places worse
0.8881 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #116 vs paper #745 629 places worse
paper 0.7681 ±0.0029
paper 0.7681 ±0.0029 Δ at pub 0.0101 Δ today 0.1200
125
GraphSAGE
0.8864 ±0.0030
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
335
E2GNN
0.8185 ±0.0045
This paper
336
MLPs
0.8185 ±0.0045
This paper
417
EKD-W
0.8034 ±0.0029
This paper
428
GLNN
actual #428 vs paper #428
0.8027 ±0.0036
actual #428 vs paper #428
paper 0.8027 ±0.0036
paper 0.8027 ±0.0036 Δ at pub 0.0067
503
GNNE
0.7953 ±0.0029
This paper
521
EKD-U
0.7945 ±0.0035
This paper
524
GEENI
0.7943 ±0.0024
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #249 248 places worse
0.9302 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #249 248 places worse
paper 0.7230 ±0.0028
paper 0.7230 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.2072
2
RSE + RGCN (70b)
0.8852 ±0.0019
3
LEMP+T
0.8825
9
SAGE
0.8771
12
APPNP
actual #12 vs paper #272 260 places worse
0.8754
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #272 260 places worse
paper 0.6868 ±0.0108
31
GAT
actual #31 vs paper #266 235 places worse
0.8533
best reported
actual #31 vs paper #266 235 places worse
paper 0.7003 ±0.0097
237
MLP
0.7469 ±0.0085
247
E2GNN
0.7323 ±0.0043
This paper
248
MLPs
0.7323 ±0.0043
This paper
263
EKD-W
0.7092 ±0.0053
This paper
264
GLNN
0.7069 ±0.0117
This paper
265
GNNE
0.7023 ±0.0022
This paper
271
GEENI
0.6879 ±0.0057
This paper
274
SGC
0.6836 ±0.0059
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 at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published