Learning to Model Graph Structural Information on MLPs via Graph Structure Self-Contrasting

Lirong Wu, Haitao Lin, Guojiang Zhao, Cheng Tan, Stan Z. Li

Main figure for Learning to Model Graph Structural Information on MLPs via Graph Structure Self-Contrasting

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed great success in handling graph-related tasks with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). However, most existing GNNs are based on message passing to perform feature aggregation and transformation, where the structural information is explicitly involved in the forward propagation by coupling with node features through graph convolution at each layer. As a result, subtle feature noise or structure perturbation may cause severe error propagation, resulting in extremely poor robustness. In this paper, we rethink the roles played by graph structural information in graph data training and identify that message passing is not the only path to modeling structural information. Inspired by this, we propose a simple but effective raph tructure elf- ontrasting (GSSC) framework that learns graph structural information without message passing. The proposed framework is based purely on Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs), where the structural information is only implicitly incorporated as prior knowledge to guide the computation of supervision signals, substituting the explicit message propagation as in GNNs. Specifically, it first applies structural sparsification to remove potentially uninformative or noisy edges in the neighborhood, and then performs structural self-contrasting in the sparsified neighborhood to learn robust node representations. Finally, structural sparsification and self-contrasting are formulated as a bi-level optimization problem and solved in a unified framework. Extensive experiments have qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrated that the GSSC framework can produce truly encouraging performance with better generalization and robustness than other leading competitors. Codes are publicly available at:

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 1 baseline value reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
LD
0.8942 ±0.0007
2
X_WO/LD
0.8915 ±0.0012
3
X_PNE
0.8894 ±0.0014
9
GAT
actual #9 vs paper #16 7 places worse
0.8682 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #16 7 places worse
paper 0.8410
paper 0.8410 Δ at pub 0.0272
12
STR-Sparse
0.8550
This paper
14
APPNP
actual #14 vs paper #14
0.8450
actual #14 vs paper #14
paper 0.8450
paper 0.8450 Δ at pub 0.1913
16
GraphSAGE
actual #16 vs paper #16
0.8430
actual #16 vs paper #16
paper 0.8430
paper 0.8430 Δ at pub 0.0662
17
GCN
actual #17 vs paper #17
0.8320
actual #17 vs paper #17
paper 0.8320
23
SS/RD
0.8120
This paper
26
DAGNN
0.7995
This paper
29
SAGE
0.7943 ±0.0075
40
Graph-MLP
0.7850
This paper
47
LinkDist
0.7720
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