HyperAggregation: Aggregating over Graph Edges with Hypernetworks

N. Lell, A. Scherp

Main figure for HyperAggregation: Aggregating over Graph Edges with Hypernetworks

Abstract

HyperAggregation is a hypernetwork-based aggregation function for Graph Neural Networks. It uses a hypernetwork to dynamically generate weights in the size of the current neighborhood, which are then used to aggregate this neighborhood. This aggregation with the generated weights is done like an MLP-Mixer channel mixing over variable-sized vertex neighborhoods. We demonstrate HyperAggregation in two models, GraphHyperMixer is a model based on MLP-Mixer while GraphHyperConv is derived from a GCN but with a hypernetwork-based aggregation function. We perform experiments on diverse benchmark datasets for the vertex classification, graph classification, and graph regression tasks. The results show that HyperAggregation can be effectively used for homophilic and heterophilic datasets in both inductive and transductive settings. GraphHyperConv performs better than GraphHyperMixer and is especially strong in the transductive setting. On the heterophilic dataset Roman-Empire it reaches a new state of the art. On the graph-level tasks our models perform in line with similarly sized models. Ablation studies investigate the robustness against various hyperparameter choices. The implementation of HyperAggregation as well code to reproduce all experiments is available under.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 6 datasets 11 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
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #503 501 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #503 501 places worse
paper 0.8570 ±0.2030

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8570 ±0.2030 Δ at pub 0.0928 Δ today 0.1099
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
actual #7 vs paper #378 371 places worse
0.9643 ±0.0027
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #378 371 places worse
paper 0.9140 ±0.0130
paper 0.9140 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0240 Δ today 0.0503
8
GCN
actual #8 vs paper #395 387 places worse
0.9632 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #395 387 places worse
paper 0.9120 ±0.0120
56
GraphSAGE
0.9508 ±0.0026
366
GHC
0.9163 ±0.0079
This paper
390
MLP
actual #390 vs paper #533 143 places worse
0.9128 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #533 143 places worse
paper 0.7875 ±0.0173
paper 0.7875 ±0.0173 Δ at pub 0.1253
455
GHM
0.8983 ±0.0189
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
42
MLP
actual #42 vs paper #236 194 places worse
0.4026 ±0.0108
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #236 194 places worse
paper 0.3490 ±0.0081
paper 0.3490 ±0.0081 Δ at pub 0.0536
68
GraphSAGE
0.3899 ±0.0085
112
GHM
0.3756 ±0.0126
This paper
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #258 123 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #258 123 places worse
paper 0.3426 ±0.0133
paper 0.3426 ±0.0133 Δ at pub 0.0264
167
GHC
0.3640 ±0.0146
This paper

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Dir-Poly
0.9451 ±0.0022
2
D-CDE
0.9387 ±0.0041
3
LargeScaleNet
0.9358 ±0.0024
10
GHC
0.9227 ±0.0057
This paper
26
GraphSAGE
0.9106 ±0.0027
64
SAGE
0.8574 ±0.0067
This paper
73
GHM
0.8397 ±0.0050
This paper
77
GCN
actual #77 vs paper #77
0.8272 ±0.0082
actual #77 vs paper #77
paper 0.8272 ±0.0082
paper 0.8272 ±0.0082 Δ at pub 0.0903
83
GAT
actual #83 vs paper #84 1 place worse
0.8145 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #83 vs paper #84 1 place worse
paper 0.8087 ±0.0030
paper 0.8087 ±0.0030 Δ today 0.0058
93
Best Specialized
0.7992 ±0.0056
This paper
135
MLP
actual #135 vs paper #135
0.6665 ±0.0047
actual #135 vs paper #135
paper 0.6665 ±0.0047
prev best: Evolving Computation Graphs (ICML 2023)
paper 0.6665 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0077

Minesweeper

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

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9903 ±0.0019
2
BuNN
0.9899 ±0.0016
3
M3Dphormer
0.9827 ±0.0020
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #25 16 places worse
0.9744 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #25 16 places worse
paper 0.8872 ±0.0052
11
SAGE
0.9709 ±0.0100
28
GHC
0.8749 ±0.0061
This paper
35
GHM
0.8402 ±0.0077
This paper
43
MLP
0.8000
This paper

GNNBenchmark

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Schrödinger
0.9913 ±0.0004
2
CNN
0.9907 ±0.0007
3
MPNN
0.9895 ±0.0006
11
GatedGCN
0.9855 ±0.0002
32
GIN
0.9833 ±0.0011
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 0.0201
97
SAGE
0.9731 ±0.0010
This paper
100
GHC
0.9724 ±0.0012
This paper
108
GHM
0.9674 ±0.0018
This paper
126
MLP
actual #126 vs paper #136 10 places worse
0.9534 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #136 10 places worse
paper 0.9253 ±0.0027
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.9253 ±0.0027 Δ at pub 0.0281
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #141 6 places worse
0.9405 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #141 6 places worse
paper 0.9060 ±0.0022
paper 0.9060 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0345
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
62
GatedGCN
0.7133 ±0.0039
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
101
GAT
actual #101 vs paper #114 13 places worse
0.6611 ±0.0098
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #114 13 places worse
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0189
104
SAGE
0.6577 ±0.0031
This paper
121
GHC
0.5983 ±0.0061
This paper
124
GCN
actual #124 vs paper #131 7 places worse
0.5839 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #131 7 places worse
paper 0.5414 ±0.0039
paper 0.5414 ±0.0039 Δ at pub 0.0425
126
MLP
actual #126 vs paper #133 7 places worse
0.5634 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #126 vs paper #133 7 places worse
paper 0.5228 ±0.0012
best at pub: GNNBenchmark (JMLR 2023)
paper 0.5228 ±0.0012 Δ at pub 0.0406
132
GHM
0.5330 ±0.0031
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 Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere