Graph Triple Attention Network: A Decoupled Perspective

Xiaotang Wang, Yun Zhu, Haizhou Shi, Yongchao Liu, Chuntao Hong

Main figure for Graph Triple Attention Network: A Decoupled Perspective

Abstract

Graph Transformers (GTs) have recently achieved significant success in the graph domain by effectively capturing both long-range dependencies and graph inductive biases. However, these methods face two primary challenges: (1) multi-view chaos, which results from coupling multi-view information (positional, structural, attribute), thereby impeding flexible usage and the interpretability of the propagation process. (2) local-global chaos, which arises from coupling local message passing with global attention, leading to issues of overfitting and over-globalizing. To address these challenges, we propose a high-level decoupled perspective of GTs, breaking them down into three components and two interaction levels: positional attention, structural attention, and attribute attention, alongside local and global interaction. Based on this decoupled perspective, we design a decoupled graph triple attention network named DeGTA, which separately computes multi-view attentions and adaptively integrates multi-view local and global information. This approach offers three key advantages: enhanced interpretability, flexible design, and adaptive integration of local and global information. Through extensive experiments, DeGTA achieves state-of-the-art performance across various datasets and tasks, including node classification and graph classification. Comprehensive ablation studies demonstrate that decoupling is essential for improving performance and enhancing interpretability.

Proposed method: DeGTA

Benchmark Results

Tested on 11 datasets 17 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
236
de_attn + ada_inte
0.8479
This paper
455
de_attn + c_inte
0.8264
This paper
472
c_attn
0.8244
This paper
724
MLP
0.7768
#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
256
de_attn + ada_inte
0.7370
This paper
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
353
de_attn + c_inte
0.7285
This paper
420
c_attn
0.7240
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
134
de_attn + ada_inte
0.8544
This paper
177
c_attn
0.8359
This paper
200
de_attn + c_inte
0.8226
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
132
de_attn + ada_inte
0.8319
This paper
138
SAGE
0.8269
151
de_attn + c_inte
0.8217
This paper
175
c_attn
0.8046
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DiGGR
0.4535 ±0.0353
2
TRIGON
0.4402 ±0.0028
3
DoG
0.4320 ±0.0120
23
SGFormer
actual #23 vs paper #93 70 places worse
0.4169 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #23 vs paper #93 70 places worse
paper 0.3790 ±0.0110
paper 0.3790 ±0.0110 Δ today 0.0379
38
GCNII
actual #38 vs paper #195 157 places worse
0.4082 ±0.0179
best reported
actual #38 vs paper #195 157 places worse
paper 0.3576 ±0.0100
paper 0.3576 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0285 Δ today 0.0506
42
MLP
0.4026 ±0.0108
45
GT
actual #45 vs paper #256 211 places worse
0.4010
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #256 211 places worse
paper 0.3428 ±0.0070
49
NAGphormer
actual #49 vs paper #258 209 places worse
0.4008 ±0.0150
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #258 209 places worse
paper 0.3424 ±0.0090
paper 0.3424 ±0.0090 Δ today 0.0584
52
GPRGNN
actual #52 vs paper #209 157 places worse
0.3992 ±0.0067
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #209 157 places worse
paper 0.3558 ±0.0090
paper 0.3558 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0434 Δ today 0.0434
68
GraphSAGE
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
0.3899 ±0.0085
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #258 190 places worse
paper 0.3423 ±0.0100
paper 0.3423 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0476
98
DeGTA
0.3787 ±0.0100
This paper
110
GraphGPS
actual #110 vs paper #183 73 places worse
0.3768 ±0.0094
best reported
actual #110 vs paper #183 73 places worse
paper 0.3601 ±0.0090
paper 0.3601 ±0.0090 Δ today 0.0167
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #336 201 places worse
0.3690
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #336 201 places worse
paper 0.3057 ±0.0070
paper 0.3057 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.0633
136
NodeFormer
actual #136 vs paper #173 37 places worse
0.3628 ±0.0120
actual #136 vs paper #173 37 places worse
paper 0.3628 ±0.0120

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.3628 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0166
157
AERO-GNN
0.3657 ±0.0110
This paper
182
GAT
actual #182 vs paper #340 158 places worse
0.3605 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #182 vs paper #340 158 places worse
paper 0.3036 ±0.0090
paper 0.3036 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0569
230
GATv2
actual #230 vs paper #342 112 places worse
0.3510 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #230 vs paper #342 112 places worse
paper 0.3027 ±0.0080
paper 0.3027 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0467 Δ today 0.0483
245
ADSF
0.3468 ±0.0090
This paper
266
GIN
0.3410 ±0.0030
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
DMD++
0.9190 ±0.0260
2
F-GREAD-BS
0.9059 ±0.0380
3
APPNP
0.9010 ±0.0350
31
de_attn + ada_inte
0.8695
This paper
37
MLP
0.8629 ±0.0450
50
de_attn + c_inte
0.8449
This paper
61
c_attn
0.8327
This paper
63
GCN
0.8310 ±0.0320

LRGB

#ModelMAE ↓Paper
1
GCN
actual #1 vs paper #183 182 places worse
0.2421 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #1 vs paper #183 182 places worse
paper 0.3496 ±0.0013
paper 0.3496 ±0.0013 Δ at pub 0.1036 Δ today 0.1075
2
IPR-MPNN
0.2422 ±0.0007
3
TANGO-GPS
0.2422 ±0.0014
5
GIN
actual #5 vs paper #184 179 places worse
0.2429 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #184 179 places worse
paper 0.3547 ±0.0045
12
DeGTA
0.2437 ±0.0014
This paper
32
GRIT
0.2460 ±0.0012
This paper
87
GraphGPS
0.2500 ±0.0012
This paper
112
GT
0.2529 ±0.0016
This paper
124
SAN
0.2545 ±0.0012
This paper
159
GAT
actual #159 vs paper #184 25 places worse
0.2700 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #184 25 places worse
paper 0.3504 ±0.0028
best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Gone Hogwild (ICLR 2024)
paper 0.3504 ±0.0028 Δ at pub 0.0154 Δ today 0.0804
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
#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 #142 138 places worse
0.7261 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #142 138 places worse
paper 0.5930 ±0.0023
paper 0.5930 ±0.0023 Δ at pub 0.0930 Δ today 0.1331
26
GIN
actual #26 vs paper #162 136 places worse
0.7059 ±0.0089
best reported
actual #26 vs paper #162 136 places worse
paper 0.5498 ±0.0079
paper 0.5498 ±0.0079 Δ today 0.1561
30
DeGTA
0.7023 ±0.0101
This paper
36
GRIT
0.6988 ±0.0082
This paper
79
GraphGPS
actual #79 vs paper #91 12 places worse
0.6620 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #91 12 places worse
paper 0.6535 ±0.0041

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6535 ±0.0041 Δ today 0.0085
112
SAN
0.6439 ±0.0075
This paper
120
GT
0.6326 ±0.0126
This paper
152
GAT
0.5842 ±0.0046
This paper
181
MLP
0.4060 ±0.0021

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
actual #32 vs paper #110 78 places worse
0.9833 ±0.0011
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #110 78 places worse
paper 0.9648 ±0.0025
best at pub: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022)
paper 0.9648 ±0.0025 Δ at pub 0.0075 Δ today 0.0184
38
DeGTA
0.9823 ±0.0011
This paper
47
EGT
0.9817 ±0.0009
This paper
62
GraphGPS
0.9805 ±0.0013
This paper
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 0.0202
95
GraphSAGE
0.9731 ±0.0010
126
MLP
0.9534 ±0.0014
135
GCN
actual #135 vs paper #138 3 places worse
0.9405 ±0.0005
best reported
actual #135 vs paper #138 3 places worse
paper 0.9071 ±0.0022
paper 0.9071 ±0.0022 Δ at pub 0.0335
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
RandAlign
0.7942 ±0.0007
2
differential encoding
0.7907 ±0.0027
3
PPGT
0.7856 ±0.0070
6
DeGTA
0.7676 ±0.0093
This paper
50
GraphGPS
0.7230 ±0.0036
This paper
62
GatedGCN
0.7133 ±0.0039
82
EGT
0.6870 ±0.0041
This paper
92
GraphSAGE
0.6690 ±0.0020
101
GAT
actual #101 vs paper #112 11 places worse
0.6611 ±0.0098
best reported
actual #101 vs paper #112 11 places worse
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046
paper 0.6422 ±0.0046 Δ at pub 0.0189
109
GIN
actual #109 vs paper #129 20 places worse
0.6510 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #109 vs paper #129 20 places worse
paper 0.5525 ±0.0153
paper 0.5525 ±0.0153 Δ at pub 0.0985
124
GCN
actual #124 vs paper #128 4 places worse
0.5839 ±0.0073
best reported
actual #124 vs paper #128 4 places worse
paper 0.5571 ±0.0038
paper 0.5571 ±0.0038 Δ at pub 0.0268
126
MLP
0.5634 ±0.0018

Other Graph Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MA-GCL
0.8883 ±0.0030
2
CCA-SSG
0.8842 ±0.0030
3
ARIEL
0.8827 ±0.0020
10
GCN
0.8651 ±0.0050
15
DeGTA
0.7849 ±0.0029
This paper
17
NAGphormer
actual #17 vs paper #17
0.7798 ±0.0016
best reported
actual #17 vs paper #17
paper 0.7743 ±0.0024
20
GRAND
actual #20 vs paper #20
0.7583 ±0.0021
actual #20 vs paper #20
paper 0.7583 ±0.0021
21
GraphSAINT
actual #21 vs paper #21
0.7521 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #21
paper 0.7520 ±0.0018

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7520 ±0.0018 Δ at pub 0.0001
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) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere