ICLR 2024

Learning Long Range Dependencies on Graphs via Random Walks

Dexiong Chen, Till Hendrik Schulz, Karsten M. Borgwardt

Main figure for Learning Long Range Dependencies on Graphs via Random Walks

Abstract

Message-passing graph neural networks (GNNs) excel at capturing local relationships but struggle with long-range dependencies in graphs. In contrast, graph transformers (GTs) enable global information exchange but often oversimplify the graph structure by representing graphs as sets of fixed-length vectors. This work introduces a novel architecture that overcomes the shortcomings of both approaches by combining the long-range information of random walks with local message passing. By treating random walks as sequences, our architecture leverages recent advances in sequence models to effectively capture long-range dependencies within these walks. Based on this concept, we propose a framework that offers (1) more expressive graph representations through random walk sequences, (2) the ability to utilize any sequence model for capturing long-range dependencies, and (3) the flexibility by integrating various GNN and GT architectures. Our experimental evaluations demonstrate that our approach achieves significant performance improvements on 19 graph and node benchmark datasets, notably outperforming existing methods by up to 13\ Code:.

Proposed method: NeuralWalker

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset

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

LRGB

#ModelMRR ↑Paper
1
FloydNet
0.6143
2
Exphormer
0.4737 ±0.0024
3
Exphormer + LapPE
0.4737 ±0.0024
4
NeuralWalker
0.4707 ±0.0007
This paper
5
GPS
actual #5 vs paper #5
0.4703 ±0.0014
actual #5 vs paper #5
paper 0.4703 ±0.0014
paper 0.4703 ±0.0014 Δ at pub 0.1205
8
GatedGCN
actual #8 vs paper #8
0.4670 ±0.0004
actual #8 vs paper #8
paper 0.4670 ±0.0004
paper 0.4670 ±0.0004 Δ at pub 0.1175
16
GIN
0.4617 ±0.0005
This paper
28
GCN
actual #28 vs paper #28
0.4526 ±0.0006
actual #28 vs paper #28
paper 0.4526 ±0.0006
paper 0.4526 ±0.0006 Δ at pub 0.1102
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published