ICLR 2024

Revisiting Random Walks for Learning on Graphs

Jinwoo Kim, Olga Zaghen, Ayhan Suleymanzade, Y. Ryou, Seunghoon Hong

Main figure for Revisiting Random Walks for Learning on Graphs

Abstract

We revisit a simple model class for machine learning on graphs, where a random walk on a graph produces a machine-readable record, and this record is processed by a deep neural network to directly make vertex-level or graph-level predictions. We call these stochastic machines random walk neural networks (RWNNs), and through principled analysis, show that we can design them to be isomorphism invariant while capable of universal approximation of graph functions in probability. A useful finding is that almost any kind of record of random walks guarantees probabilistic invariance as long as the vertices are anonymized. This enables us, for example, to record random walks in plain text and adopt a language model to read these text records to solve graph tasks. We further establish a parallelism to message passing neural networks using tools from Markov chain theory, and show that over-smoothing in message passing is alleviated by construction in RWNNs, while over-squashing manifests as probabilistic under-reaching. We empirically demonstrate RWNNs on a range of problems, verifying our theoretical analysis and demonstrating the use of language models for separating strongly regular graphs where 3-WL test fails, and transductive classification on arXiv citation network..

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets

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

LRGB

#ModelAP ↑Paper
1
S^2GCN
0.7311 ±0.0066
2
S4G
0.7293 ±0.0004
3
BuNN
0.7276 ±0.0065
4
GCN
actual #4 vs paper #49 45 places worse
0.7261 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #49 45 places worse
paper 0.6860
18
RWNN-DeBERTa
0.7123 ±0.0016
This paper
22
CRaWl
0.7074
This paper
26
GIN
0.7059 ±0.0089
34
GatedGCN
actual #34 vs paper #58 24 places worse
0.7006 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #58 24 places worse
paper 0.6765
78
GINE
0.6621
This paper
112
SAN
0.6439
This paper
119
Transformer
0.6326
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
UniGAP
0.6375 ±0.0110
2
H2GCN + HalfHop
0.5961 ±0.0100
3
GraphSAGE + HalfHop
0.5897 ±0.0150
10
RWNN-Llama3-8b, fine-tuned
0.5576
This paper
12
SAGE
0.5569 ±0.0023
14
GAT
actual #14 vs paper #105 91 places worse
0.5559 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #105 91 places worse
paper 0.4909
24
GCN
actual #24 vs paper #111 87 places worse
0.5411 ±0.0034
best reported
actual #24 vs paper #111 87 places worse
paper 0.4870
69
OFA
0.5144
This paper
84
MLP
0.5058
171
RWNN-Llama3-8B
0.4271
This paper
199
LLaGA
0.2820
This paper

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
5
RWNN-DeBERTa
1.0000
This paper
1
PPGN
1.0000
This paper
2
RW-AgentNet
1.0000
This paper
3
AgentNet
1.0000
This paper
4
CRaWl
1.0000
This paper
8
GCN
1.0000
54
GIN-Dropout
0.8200
This paper
62
GIN-RP
0.3760
This paper
70
GIN-RNI
0.1600
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere