NeurIPS 2024

Graph Classification via Reference Distribution Learning: Theory and Practice

Zixiao Wang, Jicong Fan

Main figure for Graph Classification via Reference Distribution Learning: Theory and Practice

Abstract

Graph classification is a challenging problem owing to the difficulty in quantifying the similarity between graphs or representing graphs as vectors, though there have been a few methods using graph kernels or graph neural networks (GNNs). Graph kernels often suffer from computational costs and manual feature engineering, while GNNs commonly utilize global pooling operations, risking the loss of structural or semantic information. This work introduces Graph Reference Distribution Learning (GRDL), an efficient and accurate graph classification method. GRDL treats each graph's latent node embeddings given by GNN layers as a discrete distribution, enabling direct classification without global pooling, based on maximum mean discrepancy to adaptively learned reference distributions. To fully understand this new model (the existing theories do not apply) and guide its configuration (e.g., network architecture, references' sizes, number, and regularization) for practical use, we derive generalization error bounds for GRDL and verify them numerically. More importantly, our theoretical and numerical results both show that GRDL has a stronger generalization ability than GNNs with global pooling operations. Experiments on moderate-scale and large-scale graph datasets show the superiority of GRDL over the state-of-the-art, emphasizing its remarkable efficiency, being at least 10 times faster than leading competitors in both training and inference stages.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 13 baseline values reported too low

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

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
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
0.9330 ±0.0290
best reported
actual #39 vs paper #237 198 places worse
paper 0.8940 ±0.0560

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0560 Δ at pub 0.0390
55
PATCHY-SAN
actual #55 vs paper #55
0.9260 ±0.0420
actual #55 vs paper #55
paper 0.9260 ±0.0420
prev best: Graph Homomorphism Convolution (ICML 2020)

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9260 ±0.0420 Δ at pub 0.0010
56
SAT
actual #56 vs paper #56
0.9260 ±0.0430
actual #56 vs paper #56
paper 0.9260 ±0.0430
paper 0.9260 ±0.0430 Δ at pub 0.1098
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
68
GRDL
0.9210 ±0.0590
This paper
84
OT-GNN
0.9160 ±0.0460
This paper
118
WEGL
actual #118 vs paper #118
0.9100 ±0.0340
actual #118 vs paper #118
paper 0.9100 ±0.0340

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9100 ±0.0340 Δ at pub 0.0270
132
GRDL-W
0.9080 ±0.0460
This paper
142
GRDL-S
0.9060 ±0.0570
This paper
141
MINCUTPOOL
actual #141 vs paper #141
0.9060 ±0.0460
actual #141 vs paper #141
paper 0.9060 ±0.0460

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9060 ±0.0460 Δ at pub 0.0540
160
DropGIN
actual #160 vs paper #160
0.9040 ±0.0700
actual #160 vs paper #160
paper 0.9040 ±0.0700

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9040 ±0.0700 Δ at pub 0.0130
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #366 207 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #366 207 places worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0540

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8740 ±0.0540 Δ at pub 0.0300
202
GMT
actual #202 vs paper #202
0.8990 ±0.0420
actual #202 vs paper #202
paper 0.8990 ±0.0420
paper 0.8990 ±0.0420 Δ at pub 0.0646
224
Graphormer
actual #224 vs paper #224
0.8960 ±0.0620
actual #224 vs paper #224
paper 0.8960 ±0.0620

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8960 ±0.0620 Δ at pub 0.0280
239
DiffPool
actual #239 vs paper #239
0.8940 ±0.0460
actual #239 vs paper #239
paper 0.8940 ±0.0460

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0460 Δ at pub 0.0300
245
SEP
actual #245 vs paper #245
0.8940 ±0.0610
actual #245 vs paper #245
paper 0.8940 ±0.0610

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8940 ±0.0610 Δ at pub 0.0384
246
WITTOPOPOOL
0.8940 ±0.0540
This paper
367
ASAP
actual #367 vs paper #367
0.8740 ±0.0570
actual #367 vs paper #367
paper 0.8740 ±0.0570
paper 0.8740 ±0.0570 Δ at pub 0.0723
403
MLP
0.8660 ±0.0495
409
WWL
0.8630 ±0.0790
This paper
474
FGW - SP
0.8440 ±0.0730
This paper
541
FGW - ADJ
0.8260 ±0.0720
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9954
2
GIN
actual #2 vs paper #120 118 places worse
0.9934
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #120 118 places worse
paper 0.8220 ±0.0080
paper 0.8220 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.1714
3
GCN
0.9727
5
DiffPool
actual #5 vs paper #182 177 places worse
0.9210 ±0.0260
best reported
actual #5 vs paper #182 177 places worse
paper 0.8090 ±0.0070
paper 0.8090 ±0.0070 Δ at pub 0.1120
12
WL
actual #12 vs paper #16 4 places worse
0.8590 ±0.0010
best reported
actual #12 vs paper #16 4 places worse
paper 0.8560 ±0.0120
best at pub: Propagation Kernels (2014)
paper 0.8560 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0030
15
WWL
0.8570 ±0.0080
This paper
78
OT-GNN
0.8290 ±0.0210
This paper
105
SAT
actual #105 vs paper #105
0.8250 ±0.0080
actual #105 vs paper #105
paper 0.8250 ±0.0080

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8250 ±0.0080 Δ at pub 0.0181
123
DropGIN
actual #123 vs paper #137 14 places worse
0.8219 ±0.0139
best reported
actual #123 vs paper #137 14 places worse
paper 0.8190 ±0.0250
best at pub: Union Subgraph Neural Networks (AAAI 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8190 ±0.0250 Δ at pub 0.0029
131
GraphSAGE
0.8200 ±0.0100
154
Graphormer
actual #154 vs paper #287 133 places worse
0.8144 ±0.0057
best reported
actual #154 vs paper #287 133 places worse
paper 0.7860 ±0.0210
paper 0.7860 ±0.0210 Δ at pub 0.0284
172
GRDL-S
0.8120 ±0.0150
This paper
183
GRDL-W
0.8090 ±0.0080
This paper
203
GRDL
0.8040 ±0.0080
This paper
226
GMT
actual #226 vs paper #226
0.7990 ±0.0040
actual #226 vs paper #226
paper 0.7990 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7990 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0355
228
WITTOPOPOOL
0.7990 ±0.0130
This paper
254
SEP
actual #254 vs paper #300 46 places worse
0.7935 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #254 vs paper #300 46 places worse
paper 0.7840 ±0.0060
paper 0.7840 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0095
288
PATCHY-SAN
actual #288 vs paper #366 78 places worse
0.7860 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #288 vs paper #366 78 places worse
paper 0.7690 ±0.0230

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7690 ±0.0230 Δ at pub 0.0170 Δ today 0.0170
309
ASAP
actual #309 vs paper #465 156 places worse
0.7821 ±0.0175
best reported
actual #309 vs paper #465 156 places worse
paper 0.7150 ±0.0040
paper 0.7150 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0671
368
MINCUTPOOL
actual #368 vs paper #430 62 places worse
0.7680 ±0.0160
best reported
actual #368 vs paper #430 62 places worse
paper 0.7430 ±0.0090
paper 0.7430 ±0.0090 Δ at pub 0.0250
369
WEGL
actual #369 vs paper #404 35 places worse
0.7680 ±0.0170
best reported
actual #369 vs paper #404 35 places worse
paper 0.7550 ±0.0140

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7550 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0130
426
FGW - ADJ
0.7440 ±0.0210
This paper
454
FGW - SP
0.7280 ±0.0150
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
MSH-GNN
0.9410 ±0.0330
2
GRDL
0.8260 ±0.0120
This paper
3
GMN
0.8225
4
GRDL-W
0.8210 ±0.0090
This paper
7
DiffPool
actual #7 vs paper #135 128 places worse
0.8161 ±0.0232
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #135 128 places worse
paper 0.7620 ±0.0140
10
GRDL-S
0.8110 ±0.0140
This paper
18
WITTOPOPOOL
0.8000 ±0.0320
This paper
29
ASAP
actual #29 vs paper #320 291 places worse
0.7892 ±0.0145
best reported
actual #29 vs paper #320 291 places worse
paper 0.7390 ±0.0060
paper 0.7390 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0502
32
GIN
actual #32 vs paper #135 103 places worse
0.7880 ±0.0410
best reported
actual #32 vs paper #135 103 places worse
paper 0.7620 ±0.0280

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7620 ±0.0280 Δ at pub 0.0260
55
SAT
actual #55 vs paper #55
0.7770 ±0.0320
actual #55 vs paper #55
paper 0.7770 ±0.0320
67
SAGE
0.7726 ±0.0228
88
DropGIN
actual #88 vs paper #88
0.7690 ±0.0430
actual #88 vs paper #88
paper 0.7690 ±0.0430

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7690 ±0.0430 Δ at pub 0.0080
103
OT-GNN
0.7660 ±0.0400
This paper
115
SEP
actual #115 vs paper #116 1 place worse
0.7642 ±0.0039
best reported
actual #115 vs paper #116 1 place worse
paper 0.7640 ±0.0040

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7640 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0002
128
Graphormer
actual #128 vs paper #128
0.7630 ±0.0270
actual #128 vs paper #128
paper 0.7630 ±0.0270
142
WEGL
actual #142 vs paper #325 183 places worse
0.7610 ±0.0330
best reported
actual #142 vs paper #325 183 places worse
paper 0.7370 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7370 ±0.0190 Δ at pub 0.0240
149
MLP
0.7600 ±0.0320
172
MINCUTPOOL
actual #172 vs paper #275 103 places worse
0.7575 ±0.0380
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #275 103 places worse
paper 0.7470 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7470 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0105
190
WL
actual #190 vs paper #294 104 places worse
0.7560 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #190 vs paper #294 104 places worse
paper 0.7440 ±0.0260
paper 0.7440 ±0.0260 Δ at pub 0.0120
237
PATCHY-SAN
actual #237 vs paper #237
0.7510 ±0.0330
actual #237 vs paper #237
paper 0.7510 ±0.0330

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7510 ±0.0330 Δ at pub 0.0010
236
GMT
actual #236 vs paper #236
0.7510 ±0.0060
actual #236 vs paper #236
paper 0.7510 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7510 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0001
299
FGW - SP
0.7430 ±0.0330
This paper
300
WWL
actual #300 vs paper #360 60 places worse
0.7430 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #300 vs paper #360 60 places worse
paper 0.7310 ±0.0140
paper 0.7310 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0120
391
FGW - ADJ
0.7240 ±0.0470
This paper

COLLAB

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 20 values on Accuracy and 2 values on Testing Accuracy .

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultTesting Accuracy ↑Paper
1
WL-MLP
0.9792
—
2
MSH-GNN
0.9640 ± 0.0070
—
3
CoCN
0.8722 ± 0.0013
—
23
GCN
0.8260 ± 0.0220
—
30
GIN
0.8220 ±0.0210
best reported
0.7930
Testing Accuracy 0.7930
paper 0.7930 ±0.0170

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7930 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0290
33
DiffPool
0.8213 ±0.0043
best reported
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.8080 ±0.0160
paper 0.8080 ±0.0160 Δ at pub 0.0133
38
Graphormer
0.8180 ±0.0224
best reported
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.8030 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8030 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0150
58
WWL
0.8140 ± 0.0210
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
69
SEP
0.8130 ±0.0020
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.8130 ±0.0020

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8130 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0002
86
MINCUTPOOL
0.8090 ±0.0030
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.8090 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8090 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0003
93
GMT
0.8074 ±0.0054
best reported
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.8070 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8070 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0004
96
OT-GNN
0.8070 ± 0.0290
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
100
FGW - ADJ
0.8060 ± 0.0150
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
101
SAT
0.8060 ±0.0060
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.8060 ±0.0060

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8060 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0055
109
GRDL-W
0.8040 ± 0.0110
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
122
DropGIN
0.8010 ± 0.0280
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
123
WITTOPOPOOL
0.8010 ± 0.0160
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
134
GRDL
0.7980 ± 0.0090
0.7990
Testing Accuracy 0.7990
This paper
143
WEGL
0.7960 ± 0.0050
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
151
MLP
0.7920 ± 0.0240
—
153
WL
0.7910 ±0.0010
best reported
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.7850 ±0.0170
paper 0.7850 ±0.0170 Δ at pub 0.0060
166
ASAP
0.7864 ±0.0050
best reported
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.7860 ±0.0050

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7860 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0004
168
GRDL-S
0.7860 ± 0.0130
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
185
FGW - SP
0.7780 ± 0.0240
—
Testing Accuracy —
This paper
275
PATCHY-SAN
0.7310 ±0.0270
—
Testing Accuracy —
paper 0.7310 ±0.0270

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7310 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0050
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