Motif-driven Subgraph Structure Learning for Graph Classification

Zhiyao Zhou, Sheng Zhou, Bochao Mao, Jiawei Chen, Qingyun Sun, Yan Feng, Chun Chen, Can Wang

Main figure for Motif-driven Subgraph Structure Learning for Graph Classification

Abstract

To mitigate the suboptimal nature of graph structure, Graph Structure Learning (GSL) has emerged as a promising approach to improve graph structure and boost performance in downstream tasks. Despite the proposal of numerous GSL methods, the progresses in this field mostly concentrated on node-level tasks, while graph-level tasks (e.g., graph classification) remain largely unexplored. Notably, applying node-level GSL to graph classification is non-trivial due to the lack of find-grained guidance for intricate structure learning. Inspired by the vital role of subgraph in graph classification, in this paper we explore the potential of subgraph structure learning for graph classification by tackling the challenges of key subgraph selection and structure optimization. We propose a novel Motif-driven Subgraph Structure Learning method for Graph Classification (MOSGSL). Specifically, MOSGSL incorporates a subgraph structure learning module which can adaptively select important subgraphs. A motif-driven structure guidance module is further introduced to capture key subgraph-level structural patterns (motifs) and facilitate personalized structure learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate a significant and consistent improvement over baselines, as well as its flexibility and generalizability for various backbones and learning procedures. The code is available in the.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 6 baseline values reported too low

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

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #465 433 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #465 433 places worse
paper 0.6918 ±0.0285
58
TopKPool
actual #58 vs paper #430 372 places worse
0.7768
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #430 372 places worse
paper 0.7133 ±0.0656
best at pub: Memory-Based Graph Networks (ICLR 2020)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7133 ±0.0656 Δ at pub 0.0635
67
SAGE
actual #67 vs paper #466 399 places worse
0.7726 ±0.0228
best reported
actual #67 vs paper #466 399 places worse
paper 0.6856 ±0.0493
paper 0.6856 ±0.0493 Δ at pub 0.0870 Δ today 0.0870
148
GCN
actual #148 vs paper #476 328 places worse
0.7600 ±0.0320
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #476 328 places worse
paper 0.6649 ±0.0458
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
155
GraphSAGE
0.7590 ±0.0320
184
EdgePool
actual #184 vs paper #430 246 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0240
best reported
actual #184 vs paper #430 246 places worse
paper 0.7134 ±0.0455

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7134 ±0.0455 Δ at pub 0.0426
236
GMT
actual #236 vs paper #325 89 places worse
0.7510 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #236 vs paper #325 89 places worse
paper 0.7377 ±0.0569

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7377 ±0.0569 Δ at pub 0.0132 Δ today 0.0133
415
HGP-SL
0.7188 ±0.0435
This paper
427
VIBGSL
0.7161 ±0.0457
This paper
468
NeuralSparse
0.6847 ±0.0385
This paper
509
GRCN
0.6069 ±0.0229
This paper
511
GAUG
0.5957 ±0.0700
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GMN
0.7866
2
MemGNN
0.7550
3
TFGW SP
0.7510 ±0.0500
17
GatedGCN
0.7000 ±0.0494
26
GraphSAGE
0.6817 ±0.0545
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #141 109 places worse
0.6767 ±0.0583
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #141 109 places worse
paper 0.5400 ±0.0517
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5400 ±0.0517 Δ at pub 0.1367
36
GCN
actual #36 vs paper #160 124 places worse
0.6650 ±0.0691
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #160 124 places worse
paper 0.4867 ±0.0571
best at pub: Hierarchical Graph Capsule Network (AAAI 2020)
paper 0.4867 ±0.0571 Δ at pub 0.1783
92
GMT
0.6033 ±0.0661
This paper
100
NeuralSparse
0.5967 ±0.0515
This paper
111
VIBGSL
0.5833 ±0.0405
This paper
124
MLP
0.5583 ±0.0352
125
HGP-SL
0.5583 ±0.0746
This paper
126
SAGE
0.5550 ±0.0511
This paper
130
EdgePool
0.5517 ±0.0926
This paper
147
TopKPool
0.5267 ±0.0754
This paper
150
GAUG
0.5233 ±0.0902
This paper
165
GRCN
0.4817 ±0.0558
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
OEPG
0.9630 ±0.0090
2
MSH-GNN
0.9580 ±0.0090
3
GNN-AK+
0.9480 ±0.0080
13
GIN
actual #13 vs paper #80 67 places worse
0.9240 ±0.0250
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #80 67 places worse
paper 0.7550 ±0.0240
paper 0.7550 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.1690 Δ today 0.1690
64
TopKPool
0.8480 ±0.0625
This paper
66
GMT
0.8415 ±0.0247
This paper
69
NeuralSparse
0.8125 ±0.0223
This paper
70
EdgePool
0.8115 ±0.0356
This paper
79
VIBGSL
0.7645 ±0.0297
This paper
84
GCN
actual #84 vs paper #84
0.7060 ±0.0369
actual #84 vs paper #84
paper 0.7060 ±0.0369
paper 0.7060 ±0.0369 Δ at pub 0.2060
86
SAGE
0.6780 ±0.0424
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) 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