KDD 2024

TSC: A Simple Two-Sided Constraint against Over-Smoothing

Furong Peng, Kang Liu, Xuan Lu, Yuhua Qian, Hongren Yan, Chao Ma

Main figure for TSC: A Simple Two-Sided Constraint against Over-Smoothing

Abstract

Graph Convolutional Neural Network (GCN), a widely adopted method for analyzing relational data, enhances node discriminability through the aggregation of neighboring information. Usually, stacking multiple layers can improve the performance of GCN by leveraging information from high-order neighbors. However, the increase of the network depth will induce the over-smoothing problem, which can be attributed to the quality and quantity of neighbors changing: (a) neighbor quality, node's neighbors become overlapping in high order, leading to aggregated information becoming indistinguishable, (b) neighbor quantity, the exponentially growing aggregated neighbors submerges the node's initial feature by recursively aggregating operations. Current solutions mainly focus on one of the above causes and seldom consider both at once. Aiming at tackling both causes of over-smoothing in one shot, we introduce a simple Two-Sided Constraint (TSC) for GCNs, comprising two straightforward yet potent techniques: random masking and contrastive constraint. The random masking acts on the representation matrix's columns to regulate the degree of information aggregation from neighbors, thus preventing the convergence of node representations. Meanwhile, the contrastive constraint, applied to the representation matrix's rows, enhances the discriminability of the nodes. Designed as a plug-in module, TSC can be easily coupled with GCN or SGC architectures. Experimental analyses on diverse real-world graph datasets verify that our approach markedly reduces the convergence of node's representation and the performance degradation in deeper GCN.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets 10 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
actual #21 vs paper #340 319 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #340 319 places worse
paper 0.8360
paper 0.8360 Δ at pub 0.0644
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
45
GCNII
actual #45 vs paper #220 175 places worse
0.8893 ±0.0137
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #220 175 places worse
paper 0.8520
best at pub: Language is All a Graph Needs (2023)
paper 0.8520 Δ at pub 0.0373 Δ today 0.0373
196
GCN+TS
actual #196 vs paper #222 26 places worse
0.8574 ±0.0054
best reported
actual #196 vs paper #222 26 places worse
paper 0.8510

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8510 Δ today 0.0064
212
SGC+TSC
0.8540
This paper
223
SGC
actual #223 vs paper #439 216 places worse
0.8509 ±0.0648
best reported
actual #223 vs paper #439 216 places worse
paper 0.8280

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8280 Δ at pub 0.0229
246
NDLS
actual #246 vs paper #289 43 places worse
0.8460 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #246 vs paper #289 43 places worse
paper 0.8410
paper 0.8410 Δ at pub 0.0050
336
ContraNorm(GCN)
0.8370
This paper
445
DropEdge(GCN)
0.8280
This paper
446
AIR(SGC)
0.8280
This paper
547
SJLR
actual #547 vs paper #547
0.8190
actual #547 vs paper #547
paper 0.8190

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8190 Δ at pub 0.0060
724
MLP
0.7768
792
DeepGCN
0.7340
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
36
GCNII
actual #36 vs paper #207 171 places worse
0.8076 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #36 vs paper #207 171 places worse
paper 0.7440
paper 0.7440 Δ at pub 0.0636
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #463 419 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #463 419 places worse
paper 0.7190
61
GraphSAGE
0.7923 ±0.0053
96
SGC
actual #96 vs paper #227 131 places worse
0.7765 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #96 vs paper #227 131 places worse
paper 0.7400
188
GCN+TS
0.7480
This paper
194
SGC+TSC
0.7470
This paper
197
AIR(SGC)
0.7460
This paper
266
NDLS
actual #266 vs paper #266
0.7360
actual #266 vs paper #266
paper 0.7360
paper 0.7360 Δ at pub 0.0397
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
357
ContraNorm(GCN)
0.7280
This paper
436
DropEdge(GCN)
0.7230
This paper
456
DropMessage(GCN)
0.7210
This paper
587
SJLR
actual #587 vs paper #636 49 places worse
0.7060 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #587 vs paper #636 49 places worse
paper 0.6950
810
DeepGCN
0.6270
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
actual #18 vs paper #474 456 places worse
0.9296 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #18 vs paper #474 456 places worse
paper 0.7980
58
GCNII
actual #58 vs paper #418 360 places worse
0.9030 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #418 360 places worse
paper 0.8030
116
SAGE
0.8881 ±0.0015
141
SGC
actual #141 vs paper #585 444 places worse
0.8832 ±0.0055
best reported
actual #141 vs paper #585 444 places worse
paper 0.7900
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
318
SGC+TSC
0.8250
This paper
392
GCN+TS
actual #392 vs paper #393 1 place worse
0.8074 ±0.0030
best reported
actual #392 vs paper #393 1 place worse
paper 0.8070

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8070 Δ today 0.0004
398
NDLS
0.8070
This paper
480
ContraNorm(GCN)
0.7980
This paper
500
DropEdge(GCN)
0.7960
This paper
518
DropMessage(GCN)
0.7950
This paper
599
AIR(SGC)
0.7900
This paper
631
SJLR
actual #631 vs paper #631
0.7860
actual #631 vs paper #631
paper 0.7860
778
DeepGCN
0.7570
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