TMLR 2024

PROXI: Challenging the GNNs for Link Prediction

Astrit Tola, Jack Myrick, B. Coskunuzer

Main figure for PROXI: Challenging the GNNs for Link Prediction

Abstract

Over the past decade, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have transformed graph representation learning. In the widely adopted message-passing GNN framework, nodes refine their representations by aggregating information from neighboring nodes iteratively. While GNNs excel in various domains, recent theoretical studies have raised concerns about their capabilities. GNNs aim to address various graph-related tasks by utilizing such node representations, however, this one-size-fits-all approach proves suboptimal for diverse tasks. Motivated by these observations, we conduct empirical tests to compare the performance of current GNN models with more conventional and direct methods in link prediction tasks. Introducing our model, PROXI, which leverages proximity information of node pairs in both graph and attribute spaces, we find that standard machine learning (ML) models perform competitively, even outperforming cutting-edge GNN models when applied to these proximity metrics derived from node neighborhoods and attributes. This holds true across both homophilic and heterophilic networks, as well as small and large benchmark datasets, including those from the Open Graph Benchmark (OGB). Moreover, we show that augmenting traditional GNNs with PROXI significantly boosts their link prediction performance. Our empirical findings corroborate the previously mentioned theoretical observations and imply that there exists ample room for enhancement in current GNN models to reach their potential.

Proposed method: PROXI

Benchmark Results

Tested on 2 datasets 3 baseline values reported too low

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

OGB

#ModelHits@50 ↑Paper
1
PROXI
0.7650 ±0.0027
This paper
2
OGB Leader
0.7129 ±0.0018
This paper
3
GIDN
0.7096 ±0.0055
9
GCN
actual #9 vs paper #35 26 places worse
0.6621 ±0.0033
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #35 26 places worse
paper 0.5496 ±0.0318
paper 0.5496 ±0.0318 Δ at pub 0.1125
10
Neo-GNN
actual #10 vs paper #10
0.6613 ±0.0061
actual #10 vs paper #10
paper 0.6613 ±0.0061
paper 0.6613 ±0.0061 Δ at pub 0.0861
13
NCNC
0.6597 ±0.0103
This paper
14
BUDDY
actual #14 vs paper #20 6 places worse
0.6594 ±0.0058
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #20 6 places worse
paper 0.6459 ±0.0046
19
NCN
actual #19 vs paper #26 7 places worse
0.6476 ±0.0087
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #26 7 places worse
paper 0.6386 ±0.0051

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6386 ±0.0051 Δ at pub 0.0090
20
SEAL
actual #20 vs paper #26 6 places worse
0.6474 ±0.0043
best reported
actual #20 vs paper #26 6 places worse
paper 0.6337 ±0.0069
28
SAGE
actual #28 vs paper #28
0.5944 ±0.0137
actual #28 vs paper #28
paper 0.5944 ±0.0137
paper 0.5944 ±0.0137 Δ at pub 0.0481
34
GAT
actual #34 vs paper #35 1 place worse
0.5643 ±0.0086
best reported
actual #34 vs paper #35 1 place worse
paper 0.5500 ±0.0328

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.5500 ±0.0328 Δ at pub 0.0143
41
GraphSAGE
0.5463 ±0.0112
74
N2Vec
0.4906 ±0.0104
This paper
94
MLP
0.4438 ±0.0347
98
MF
actual #98 vs paper #98
0.4181 ±0.0167
actual #98 vs paper #98
paper 0.4181 ±0.0167
paper 0.4181 ±0.0167 Δ at pub 0.0291
#ModelHits@100 ↑Paper
1
OGB Leader
0.6524 ±0.0150
This paper
2
PRB
0.6347 ±0.0175
3
LPFormer
0.6332 ±0.0063
4
NCNC
actual #4 vs paper #5 1 place worse
0.6264 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #4 vs paper #5 1 place worse
paper 0.6261 ±0.0076

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6261 ±0.0076 Δ at pub 0.0003
5
NCN
0.6263 ±0.0115
This paper
10
PROXI
0.5036 ±0.0076
This paper
14
SAGE
0.5013 ±0.0055
19
SEAL
actual #19 vs paper #20 1 place worse
0.4880 ±0.0316
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #20 1 place worse
paper 0.4840 ±0.0561

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.4840 ±0.0561 Δ at pub 0.0040 Δ today 0.0040
23
MLP
0.4600
42
MF
actual #42 vs paper #48 6 places worse
0.3230 ±0.0090
best reported
actual #42 vs paper #48 6 places worse
paper 0.2840 ±0.0462

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2840 ±0.0462 Δ at pub 0.0390
54
N2Vec
0.2624 ±0.0096
This paper
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