NeurIPS 2024

Towards Dynamic Message Passing on Graphs

Junshu Sun, Chen Yang, Xiangyang Ji, Qingming Huang, Shuhui Wang

Main figure for Towards Dynamic Message Passing on Graphs

Abstract

Message passing plays a vital role in graph neural networks (GNNs) for effective feature learning. However, the over-reliance on input topology diminishes the efficacy of message passing and restricts the ability of GNNs. Despite efforts to mitigate the reliance, existing study encounters message-passing bottlenecks or high computational expense problems, which invokes the demands for flexible message passing with low complexity. In this paper, we propose a novel dynamic message-passing mechanism for GNNs. It projects graph nodes and learnable pseudo nodes into a common space with measurable spatial relations between them. With nodes moving in the space, their evolving relations facilitate flexible pathway construction for a dynamic message-passing process. Associating pseudo nodes to input graphs with their measured relations, graph nodes can communicate with each other intermediately through pseudo nodes under linear complexity. We further develop a GNN model named $N^2$ based on our dynamic message-passing mechanism. $N^2$ employs a single recurrent layer to recursively generate the displacements of nodes and construct optimal dynamic pathways. Evaluation on eighteen benchmarks demonstrates the superior performance of $N^2$ over popular GNNs. $N^2$ successfully scales to large-scale benchmarks and requires significantly fewer parameters for graph classification with the shared recurrent layer.

Proposed method: N^2

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 3 baseline values reported too low

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

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
paper 0.3496 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
0.2429 ±0.0019
7
GatedGCN
actual #7 vs paper #179 172 places worse
0.2431 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #179 172 places worse
paper 0.3357
paper 0.3357 Δ at pub 0.0880 Δ today 0.0926
49
GINE
actual #49 vs paper #184 135 places worse
0.2473 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #49 vs paper #184 135 places worse
paper 0.3547
paper 0.3547 Δ at pub 0.1074 Δ today 0.1074
66
Exphormer
0.2481
This paper
101
N^2
0.2512
This paper
116
DRew-GCN
0.2536
This paper
122
PathNN
actual #122 vs paper #122
0.2540 ±0.0046
best reported
actual #122 vs paper #122
paper 0.2545

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.2545 Δ at pub 0.0005
124
SAN
0.2545
This paper
183
GCNII
0.3471
This paper
201
MLP
0.4351 ±0.0008
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)