ICLR 2024

The Effectiveness of Curvature-Based Rewiring and the Role of Hyperparameters in GNNs Revisited

Floriano Tori, Vincent Holst, Vincent Ginis

Main figure for The Effectiveness of Curvature-Based Rewiring and the Role of Hyperparameters in GNNs Revisited

Abstract

Message passing is the dominant paradigm in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). The efficiency of it, however, can be limited by the topology of the graph. This happens when information is lost during propagation due to being oversquashed when travelling through bottlenecks. To remedy this, recent efforts have focused on graph rewiring techniques, which disconnect the input graph originating from the data and the computational graph, on which message passing is performed. A prominent approach for this is to use discrete graph curvature measures, of which several variants have been proposed, to identify and rewire around bottlenecks, facilitating information propagation. While oversquashing has been demonstrated in synthetic datasets, in this work we reevaluate the performance gains that curvature-based rewiring brings to real-world datasets. We show that in these datasets, edges selected during the rewiring process are not in line with theoretical criteria identifying bottlenecks. This implies they do not necessarily oversquash information during message passing. Subsequently, we demonstrate that SOTA accuracies on these datasets are outliers originating from sweeps of hyperparameters---both the ones for training and dedicated ones related to the rewiring algorithm---instead of consistent performance gains. In conclusion, our analysis nuances the effectiveness of curvature-based rewiring in real-world datasets and brings a new perspective on the methods to evaluate GNN improvements.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 10 datasets 6 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
0.9004
724
MLP
0.7768
857
None
actual #857 vs paper #880 23 places worse
0.6530
best reported
actual #857 vs paper #880 23 places worse
paper 0.5883 ±0.1636

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5883 ±0.1636 Δ at pub 0.0647
879
AFc_3
0.5925 ±0.1483
This paper
881
AFc_4
0.5868 ±0.1610
This paper
915
BFc
0.2839 ±0.1724
This paper
916
BFc_mod
0.2773 ±0.1308
This paper
917
JLc
0.2683 ±0.1382
This paper
922
BFc_3
0.2186 ±0.0875
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
566
None
actual #566 vs paper #843 277 places worse
0.7090 ±0.0070
best reported
actual #566 vs paper #843 277 places worse
paper 0.5814 ±0.0733
paper 0.5814 ±0.0733 Δ at pub 0.1276
817
AFc_4
0.6167 ±0.0543
This paper
831
AFc_3
0.6011 ±0.0630
This paper
883
BFc_mod
0.4416 ±0.1246
This paper
885
JLc
0.4248 ±0.0783
This paper
888
BFc
0.3599 ±0.1382
This paper
892
BFc_3
0.3035 ±0.1203
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
844
None
actual #844 vs paper #876 32 places worse
0.6960
best reported
actual #844 vs paper #876 32 places worse
paper 0.4199 ±0.1258
paper 0.4199 ±0.1258 Δ at pub 0.2761
876
AFc_3
0.4274 ±0.1291
This paper
877
AFc_4
0.4140 ±0.1265
This paper
879
BFc_mod
0.4123 ±0.1130
This paper
880
BFc_3
0.4097 ±0.1201
This paper
884
BFc
0.3967 ±0.0830
This paper
885
JLc
0.3947 ±0.0897
This paper

TU Dortmund

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9910 ±0.0030
2
ID-GNN+BEC
0.9830 ±0.0360
3
SupCosine
0.9830 ±0.0250
39
GIN
0.9330 ±0.0290
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
691
None
actual #691 vs paper #792 101 places worse
0.7610 ±0.0310
best reported
actual #691 vs paper #792 101 places worse
paper 0.5534 ±0.0367
793
AFc_3
0.5463 ±0.0291
This paper
794
BFc_mod
0.5456 ±0.0232
This paper
795
AFc_4
0.5454 ±0.0240
This paper
796
JLc
0.5453 ±0.0286
This paper
797
BFc_3
0.5445 ±0.0225
This paper
798
BFc
0.5438 ±0.0171
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
3
GMN
0.8225
32
GIN
0.7880 ±0.0410
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
443
None
actual #443 vs paper #498 55 places worse
0.7098 ±0.0074
best reported
actual #443 vs paper #498 55 places worse
paper 0.6145 ±0.0149
paper 0.6145 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.0953
500
BFc
0.6136 ±0.0123
This paper
502
AFc_4
0.6127 ±0.0102
This paper
503
AFc_3
0.6122 ±0.0045
This paper
504
BFc_mod
0.6120 ±0.0018
This paper
505
JLc
0.6120 ±0.0037
This paper
507
BFc_3
0.6116
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
279
None
actual #279 vs paper #501 222 places worse
0.7780 ±0.0120
best reported
actual #279 vs paper #501 222 places worse
paper 0.5995 ±0.0115
paper 0.5995 ±0.0115 Δ at pub 0.1785
507
AFc_4
0.5979 ±0.0054
This paper
510
AFc_3
0.5958 ±0.0052
This paper
519
BFc
0.5926
This paper
520
BFc_3
0.5926
This paper
521
BFc_mod
0.5926
This paper
522
JLc
0.5926
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9541 ±0.0272
2
ACM-GCN
0.9480 ±0.0380
3
RF-GCN
0.9429
24
MLP
0.9136 ±0.0070
138
SAGE
0.8269
437
AFc_3
0.5420 ±0.0157
This paper
446
BFc_mod
0.5368 ±0.0043
This paper
447
None
0.5366 ±0.0014
This paper
448
AFc_4
0.5363 ±0.0010
This paper
449
BFc
0.5361 ±0.0028
This paper
450
BFc_3
0.5359 ±0.0012
This paper
451
JLc
0.5357 ±0.0001
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
148
None
actual #148 vs paper #400 252 places worse
0.3670 ±0.0180
best reported
actual #148 vs paper #400 252 places worse
paper 0.2773 ±0.0200
394
AFc_4
0.2814 ±0.0102
This paper
397
AFc_3
0.2800 ±0.0093
This paper
401
BFc
0.2773 ±0.0100
This paper
402
BFc_3
0.2773 ±0.0200
This paper
403
BFc_mod
0.2773 ±0.0100
This paper
404
JLc
0.2773 ±0.0200
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
0.8560
52
GCN
0.7033
141
None
actual #141 vs paper #251 110 places worse
0.5920 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #251 110 places worse
paper 0.4076 ±0.0352
paper 0.4076 ±0.0352 Δ at pub 0.1844
169
MLP
0.5429
264
AFc_3
0.3693 ±0.0514
This paper
269
BFc
0.3458 ±0.0319
This paper
271
BFc_mod
0.3160 ±0.0204
This paper
273
AFc_4
0.3120 ±0.0062
This paper
274
BFc_3
0.3093 ±0.0010
This paper
275
JLc
0.3091 ±0.0002
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
46
GCN
0.6067
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079
200
None
0.3673 ±0.0196
This paper
209
AFc_3
0.3578 ±0.0183
This paper
211
AFc_4
0.3564 ±0.0140
This paper
215
BFc
0.3535 ±0.0100
This paper
222
BFc_mod
0.3489 ±0.0085
This paper
224
BFc_3
0.3466 ±0.0054
This paper
226
JLc
0.3453 ±0.0026
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 today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere