Automatic Graph Topology-Aware Transformer

Chao Wang, Jiaxuan Zhao, Lingling Li, Licheng Jiao, Fang Liu, Shuyuan Yang

Main figure for Automatic Graph Topology-Aware Transformer

Abstract

Existing efforts are dedicated to designing many topologies and graph-aware strategies for the graph Transformer, which greatly improve the model's representation capabilities. However, manually determining the suitable Transformer architecture for a specific graph dataset or task requires extensive expert knowledge and laborious trials. This paper proposes an evolutionary graph Transformer architecture search framework (EGTAS) to automate the construction of strong graph Transformers. We build a comprehensive graph Transformer search space with the micro-level and macro-level designs. EGTAS evolves graph Transformer topologies at the macro level and graph-aware strategies at the micro level. Furthermore, a surrogate model based on generic architectural coding is proposed to directly predict the performance of graph Transformers, substantially reducing the evaluation cost of evolutionary search. blackWe demonstrate the efficacy of EGTAS across a range of graph-level and node-level tasks, encompassing both small-scale and large-scale graph datasets. Experimental results and ablation studies show that EGTAS can construct high-performance architectures that rival state-of-the-art manual and automated baselines..

Proposed method: EGTAS

Benchmark Results

Tested on 8 datasets 19 baseline values reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #423 421 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #423 421 places worse
paper 0.8074 ±0.0196
paper 0.8074 ±0.0196 Δ at pub 0.0898 Δ today 0.1338
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #153 150 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #153 150 places worse
paper 0.8908 ±0.0043
8
SAGE
actual #8 vs paper #70 62 places worse
0.9052 ±0.0042
actual #8 vs paper #70 62 places worse
paper 0.9052 ±0.0042

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9052 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0051 Δ today 0.0299
15
EGTAS
0.9253 ±0.0066
This paper
28
GCNII-GAT
0.9191 ±0.0011
This paper
32
JK-GAT
0.9180 ±0.0023
This paper
44
F2GNN
0.9142 ±0.0026
This paper
46
GraphSAGE
0.9120 ±0.0029
54
SANE
0.9102 ±0.0021
This paper
60
Res-GAT
0.9084 ±0.0049
This paper
68
GMT
0.9062 ±0.0051
This paper
78
Graphormer
0.9036 ±0.0090
This paper
199
GATv2
actual #199 vs paper #199
0.8825 ±0.0771
actual #199 vs paper #199
paper 0.8825 ±0.0771

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8825 ±0.0771 Δ at pub 0.0406
282
GIN
actual #282 vs paper #463 181 places worse
0.8626 ±0.0056
best reported
actual #282 vs paper #463 181 places worse
paper 0.7296 ±0.0487
best at pub: Union Subgraph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023)
paper 0.7296 ±0.0487 Δ at pub 0.1330
291
SNAG
0.8598 ±0.0072
This paper
320
MLP
0.8463

OGB

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Jacobi
0.8968
2
GPR
0.8953
3
LEMP4HG
0.8939
4
SAGE
actual #4 vs paper #199 195 places worse
0.8933
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #199 195 places worse
paper 0.7870 ±0.0036
6
GCN
actual #6 vs paper #188 182 places worse
0.8868
best reported
actual #6 vs paper #188 182 places worse
paper 0.7897 ±0.0033
9
GAT
actual #9 vs paper #229 220 places worse
0.8829
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #229 220 places worse
paper 0.7723 ±0.0237
83
GraphSAGE
0.8287
95
EGTAS
0.8215 ±0.0037
This paper
115
GAUSS
0.8126 ±0.0036
This paper
128
F2GNN
0.8091 ±0.0076
This paper
133
SANE
0.8066 ±0.0075
This paper
134
GATv2
actual #134 vs paper #212 78 places worse
0.7846 ±0.0245
actual #134 vs paper #212 78 places worse
paper 0.7846 ±0.0245
paper 0.7846 ±0.0245 Δ at pub 0.1644
140
JK-GAT
0.8031 ±0.0102
This paper
151
Res-GAT
0.7984 ±0.0034
This paper
161
GMT
0.7951 ±0.0036
This paper
164
SNAG
0.7947 ±0.0093
This paper
171
Graphormer
0.7934 ±0.0025
This paper
185
GIN
actual #185 vs paper #185
0.7907 ±0.0052
actual #185 vs paper #185
paper 0.7907 ±0.0052
paper 0.7907 ±0.0052 Δ at pub 0.0428
215
GCNII-GAT
0.7834 ±0.0058
This paper
351
MLP
0.6605 ±0.0020
#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending
0.8476 ±0.0002
2
HyperFusion
0.8475 ±0.0003
3
PAS+FPs
0.8420 ±0.0015
9
GatedGCN
0.8090 ±0.0160
14
Graphormer
actual #14 vs paper #284 270 places worse
0.8051 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #284 270 places worse
paper 0.7189 ±0.0266
paper 0.7189 ±0.0266 Δ at pub 0.0862 Δ today 0.0862
32
EGTAS
0.7981 ±0.0117
This paper
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #286 177 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0182
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #286 177 places worse
paper 0.7111 ±0.0257
paper 0.7111 ±0.0257 Δ at pub 0.0669
160
GraphSAGE
0.7690 ±0.0136
241
AutoGT
0.7495 ±0.0102
This paper

ogbg-molpcba

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

Sorted by ROC-AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
PrunE
0.8159 ±0.0535
2
EGTAS
0.7919 ±0.0137
This paper
3
UGTs
0.7840
6
AutoGT
0.7670 ±0.0142
This paper
8
Graphormer
0.7642 ±0.0167
This paper
12
GIN
actual #12 vs paper #12
0.7042 ±0.0478
actual #12 vs paper #12
paper 0.7042 ±0.0478

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7042 ±0.0478 Δ at pub 0.0492
16
GCN
0.6887 ±0.0151

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Schrödinger
0.9913 ±0.0004
2
CNN
0.9907 ±0.0007
3
MPNN
0.9895 ±0.0006
11
GatedGCN
actual #11 vs paper #90 79 places worse
0.9855 ±0.0002
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #90 79 places worse
paper 0.9734 ±0.0014
paper 0.9734 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0121
28
EGTAS
0.9837 ±0.0026
This paper
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #110 78 places worse
0.9833 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #110 78 places worse
paper 0.9648 ±0.0025
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.9648 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0075 Δ today 0.0184
47
EGT
0.9817 ±0.0009
This paper
59
GPS
actual #59 vs paper #61 2 places worse
0.9808 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #59 vs paper #61 2 places worse
paper 0.9805 ±0.0013

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9805 ±0.0013 Δ today 0.0003
73
CRaWl
0.9794 ±0.0005
This paper
75
PNA
0.9794 ±0.0012
This paper
86
GAT
actual #86 vs paper #121 35 places worse
0.9755 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #86 vs paper #121 35 places worse
paper 0.9554 ±0.0021
paper 0.9554 ±0.0021 Δ at pub 0.0202
95
GraphSAGE
0.9731 ±0.0010
126
MLP
0.9534 ±0.0014
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #138 3 places worse
0.9405 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #138 3 places worse
paper 0.9071 ±0.0022
paper 0.9071 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0335
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
28
EGTAS
0.7431 ±0.0057
This paper
38
PNA
actual #38 vs paper #67 29 places worse
0.7311 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #67 29 places worse
paper 0.7035 ±0.0063
paper 0.7035 ±0.0063 Δ at pub 0.0276
40
DGN
actual #40 vs paper #40
0.7284 ±0.0042
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #40
paper 0.7284 ±0.0042

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7284 ±0.0042 Δ at pub 0.0000
44
GIN-AK+
actual #44 vs paper #50 6 places worse
0.7239 ±0.0038
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #50 6 places worse
paper 0.7219 ±0.0013

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7219 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.0020
46
GPS
actual #46 vs paper #49 3 places worse
0.7236 ±0.0032
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #49 3 places worse
paper 0.7230 ±0.0036

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7230 ±0.0036 Δ today 0.0006
62
GatedGCN
actual #62 vs paper #90 28 places worse
0.7133 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #62 vs paper #90 28 places worse
paper 0.6731 ±0.0031
paper 0.6731 ±0.0031 Δ at pub 0.0402
80
CRaWl
0.6901 ±0.0026
This paper
82
EGT
0.6870 ±0.0041
This paper
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
101
GAT
actual #101 vs paper #112 11 places worse
0.6611 ±0.0098
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #112 11 places worse
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0189
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #129 20 places worse
0.6510 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #129 20 places worse
paper 0.5525 ±0.0153
paper 0.5525 ±0.0153 Δ at pub 0.0985
124
GCN
actual #124 vs paper #128 4 places worse
0.5839 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #128 4 places worse
paper 0.5571 ±0.0038
paper 0.5571 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0268
126
MLP
0.5634 ±0.0018
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GRPE-Small
0.8159 ±0.0019
2
TANGO-GPS
0.8011 ±0.0014
3
GRIT
0.8003 ±0.0028
5
EGTAS
0.7924 ±0.0022
This paper
6
EGT
0.7923 ±0.0035
This paper
22
GPS
0.7802 ±0.0018
This paper
24
K-Subtree SAT
actual #24 vs paper #24
0.7786 ±0.0010
actual #24 vs paper #24
paper 0.7786 ±0.0010

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7786 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0010
50
SAN
0.7669 ±0.0065
This paper
54
GatedGCN
actual #54 vs paper #62 8 places worse
0.7608 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #54 vs paper #62 8 places worse
paper 0.7384 ±0.0033
paper 0.7384 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.0224
67
GAT
0.7059 ±0.0045
This paper
70
GCN
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
0.6903 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #70 vs paper #71 1 place worse
paper 0.6850 ±0.0098

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6850 ±0.0098 Δ at pub 0.0053
79
GIN
0.6472 ±0.0155
This paper
80
GraphSAGE
0.6388 ±0.0011
114
MLP
0.2097 ±0.0000
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DeepGraph (48)
0.9066 ±0.0006
2
GRIT (our run)
0.9041 ±0.0023
3
GRIT 2-QiQRW
0.9016 ±0.0045
17
K-Subtree SAT
actual #17 vs paper #20 3 places worse
0.8687 ±0.0004
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #20 3 places worse
paper 0.8685 ±0.0004

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8685 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.0002
19
GIN-AK+
0.8685 ±0.0006
This paper
24
EGT
0.8682 ±0.0002
This paper
38
EGTAS
0.8674 ±0.0005
This paper
50
GPS
0.8669 ±0.0006
This paper
51
DGN
0.8668 ±0.0003
This paper
58
SAN
0.8658 ±0.0004
This paper
66
GatedGCN
actual #66 vs paper #91 25 places worse
0.8651 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #66 vs paper #91 25 places worse
paper 0.8557 ±0.0009
best at pub: IJCAI--23 Formatting Instructions (IJCAI 2023)
paper 0.8557 ±0.0009 Δ at pub 0.0094
88
GCN
actual #88 vs paper #116 28 places worse
0.8561 ±0.0003
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #116 28 places worse
paper 0.7189 ±0.0033
paper 0.7189 ±0.0033 Δ at pub 0.1372
89
GIN
actual #89 vs paper #94 5 places worse
0.8559 ±0.0001
best reported
actual #89 vs paper #94 5 places worse
paper 0.8539 ±0.0014
best at pub: Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks (NeurIPS 2020)
best today: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8539 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.0020 Δ today 0.0020
107
GAT
0.7827 ±0.0019
This paper
123
MLP
0.5052
124
GraphSAGE
0.5052 ±0.0000
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere