NeurIPS 2024

Non-convolutional Graph Neural Networks

Yuanqing Wang, Kyunghyun Cho

Main figure for Non-convolutional Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Rethink convolution-based graph neural networks (GNN)---they characteristically suffer from limited expressiveness, over-smoothing, and over-squashing, and require specialized sparse kernels for efficient computation. Here, we design a simple graph learning module entirely free of convolution operators, coined random walk with unifying memory (RUM) neural network, where an RNN merges the topological and semantic graph features along the random walks terminating at each node. Relating the rich literature on RNN behavior and graph topology, we theoretically show and experimentally verify that RUM attenuates the aforementioned symptoms and is more expressive than the Weisfeiler-Lehman (WL) isomorphism test. On a variety of node- and graph-level classification and regression tasks, RUM not only achieves competitive performance, but is also robust, memory-efficient, scalable, and faster than the simplest convolutional GNNs.

Proposed method: RUM

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 5 baseline values reported too low

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
0.9643 ±0.0027
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
actual #56 vs paper #434 378 places worse
0.9508 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #56 vs paper #434 378 places worse
paper 0.9040 ±0.0130
paper 0.9040 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0468
255
RUM
0.9270 ±0.0010
This paper
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
393
MoNet
actual #393 vs paper #395 2 places worse
0.9124 ±0.0130
best reported
actual #393 vs paper #395 2 places worse
paper 0.9120 ±0.0230

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9120 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0004
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
actual #2 vs paper #389 387 places worse
0.9412 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #389 387 places worse
paper 0.8260 ±0.0240
paper 0.8260 ±0.0240 Δ at pub 0.0712 Δ today 0.1152
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #442 439 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #442 439 places worse
paper 0.7800 ±0.1900

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7800 ±0.1900 Δ at pub 0.1278 Δ today 0.1598
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
320
MLP
0.8463
367
MoNet
0.8350 ±0.0220
This paper
443
RUM
0.7780 ±0.0230
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
35
AgentNet
0.9360 ±0.0860
This paper
39
GIN
actual #39 vs paper #187 148 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #187 148 places worse
paper 0.9000 ±0.0880

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9000 ±0.0880 Δ at pub 0.0330
64
GSN
0.9220 ±0.0750
This paper
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
115
RUM
0.9100 ±0.0710
This paper
161
WLK
0.9040 ±0.0570
This paper
162
CRaWl
0.9040 ±0.0710
This paper
341
AWE
actual #341 vs paper #343 2 places worse
0.8787 ±0.0976
best reported
actual #341 vs paper #343 2 places worse
paper 0.8780 ±0.0980
best at pub: Anonymous Walk Embeddings (ICML 2018)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8780 ±0.0980 Δ at pub 0.0007
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
506
GK
actual #506 vs paper #582 76 places worse
0.8350 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #506 vs paper #582 76 places worse
paper 0.8140 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8140 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0210
643
RWK
0.7920 ±0.0210
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #91 89 places worse
paper 0.8270 ±0.0160
paper 0.8270 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.1664
3
GCN
0.9727
11
WLK
0.8600 ±0.0180
This paper
50
GSN
0.8350 ±0.0200
This paper
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
147
RUM
0.8170 ±0.0140
This paper
519
GK
actual #519 vs paper #540 21 places worse
0.6600 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #519 vs paper #540 21 places worse
paper 0.6250 ±0.0030
paper 0.6250 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0350 Δ today 0.0350
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green)