Training MLPs on Graphs without Supervision

Zehong Wang, Zheyuan Zhang, Chuxu Zhang, Yanfang Ye

Main figure for Training MLPs on Graphs without Supervision

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have demonstrated their effectiveness in various graph learning tasks, yet their reliance on neighborhood aggregation during inference poses challenges for deployment in latency-sensitive applications, such as real-time financial fraud detection. To address this limitation, recent studies have proposed distilling knowledge from teacher GNNs into student Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs) trained on node content, aiming to accelerate inference. However, these approaches often inadequately explore structural information when inferring unseen nodes. To this end, we introduce SimMLP, a Self-supervised framework for learning MLPs on graphs, designed to fully integrate rich structural information into MLPs. Notably, SimMLP is the first MLP-learning method that can achieve equivalence to GNNs in the optimal case. The key idea is to employ self-supervised learning to align the representations encoded by graph context-aware GNNs and neighborhood dependency-free MLPs, thereby fully integrating the structural information into MLPs. We provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis, demonstrating the equivalence between SimMLP and GNNs based on mutual information and inductive bias, highlighting SimMLP's advanced structural learning capabilities. Additionally, we conduct extensive experiments on 20 benchmark datasets, covering node classification, link prediction, and graph classification, to showcase SimMLP's superiority over state-of-the-art baselines, particularly in scenarios involving unseen nodes (e.g., inductive and cold-start node classification) where structural insights are crucial. Our codes are available at:.

Proposed method: SimMLP

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 19 baseline values reported too low

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
actual #2 vs paper #348 346 places worse
0.9669 ±0.0014
best reported
actual #2 vs paper #348 346 places worse
paper 0.9190 ±0.0040
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
actual #7 vs paper #113 106 places worse
0.9380 ±0.0040
actual #7 vs paper #113 106 places worse
paper 0.9380 ±0.0040

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9380 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0048 Δ today 0.0263
8
GCN
0.9632 ±0.0008
21
APPNP
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
0.9573 ±0.0012
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #164 143 places worse
paper 0.9340 ±0.0050
paper 0.9340 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0233
50
SGC
actual #50 vs paper #254 204 places worse
0.9511 ±0.0009
best reported
actual #50 vs paper #254 204 places worse
paper 0.9270 ±0.0040
paper 0.9270 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0241
88
SimMLP
0.9430 ±0.0010
This paper
104
GLNN
actual #104 vs paper #104
0.9390 ±0.0030
actual #104 vs paper #104
paper 0.9390 ±0.0030
paper 0.9390 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0940
107
VQGraph
0.9390 ±0.0030
This paper
108
NOSMOG
0.9390 ±0.0050
This paper
135
GENN
0.9360 ±0.0070
This paper
172
BGRL
actual #172 vs paper #279 107 places worse
0.9337 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #279 107 places worse
paper 0.9250 ±0.0010
paper 0.9250 ±0.0010 Δ at pub 0.0087
191
GCA
actual #191 vs paper #269 78 places worse
0.9320 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #191 vs paper #269 78 places worse
paper 0.9260 ±0.0020
203
GRACE
actual #203 vs paper #237 34 places worse
0.9313 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #203 vs paper #237 34 places worse
paper 0.9280 ±0.0060

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9280 ±0.0060 Δ today 0.0033
206
MVGRL
actual #206 vs paper #348 142 places worse
0.9310 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #206 vs paper #348 142 places worse
paper 0.9190 ±0.0020
213
DGI
actual #213 vs paper #366 153 places worse
0.9309 ±0.0008
best reported
actual #213 vs paper #366 153 places worse
paper 0.9160 ±0.0020
390
MLP
actual #390 vs paper #491 101 places worse
0.9128 ±0.0063
best reported
actual #390 vs paper #491 101 places worse
paper 0.8780 ±0.0050
paper 0.8780 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.0348
404
GraphMLP
0.9090 ±0.0100
This paper
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #110 107 places worse
0.9398 ±0.0022
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #110 107 places worse
paper 0.8990 ±0.0050
8
SAGE
actual #8 vs paper #163 155 places worse
0.9351 ±0.0006
best reported
actual #8 vs paper #163 155 places worse
paper 0.8890 ±0.0030
paper 0.8890 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0111 Δ today 0.0461
46
GraphSAGE
0.9120 ±0.0029
58
APPNP
actual #58 vs paper #240 182 places worse
0.9093 ±0.0018
best reported
actual #58 vs paper #240 182 places worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0030
paper 0.8740 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0064 Δ today 0.0353
79
BGRL
actual #79 vs paper #199 120 places worse
0.9034 ±0.0019
best reported
actual #79 vs paper #199 120 places worse
paper 0.8820 ±0.0020
paper 0.8820 ±0.0020 Δ at pub 0.0214 Δ today 0.0214
82
SGC
actual #82 vs paper #146 64 places worse
0.9022 ±0.0021
best reported
actual #82 vs paper #146 64 places worse
paper 0.8930 ±0.0060
paper 0.8930 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0092
139
GRACE
actual #139 vs paper #187 48 places worse
0.8953 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #187 48 places worse
paper 0.8840 ±0.0030
paper 0.8840 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0113 Δ today 0.0113
160
GCA
actual #160 vs paper #240 80 places worse
0.8894 ±0.0015
best reported
actual #160 vs paper #240 80 places worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0030
paper 0.8740 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0154 Δ today 0.0154
179
MVGRL
actual #179 vs paper #212 33 places worse
0.8790 ±0.0030
actual #179 vs paper #212 33 places worse
paper 0.8790 ±0.0030

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8790 ±0.0030 Δ at pub 0.0038
186
SimMLP
0.8850 ±0.0020
This paper
210
DGI
actual #210 vs paper #428 218 places worse
0.8798 ±0.0081
best reported
actual #210 vs paper #428 218 places worse
paper 0.8000 ±0.0020
231
NOSMOG
0.8760 ±0.0110
This paper
236
GLNN
actual #236 vs paper #236
0.8750 ±0.0060
actual #236 vs paper #236
paper 0.8750 ±0.0060
paper 0.8750 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0447
237
VQGraph
0.8750 ±0.0070
This paper
251
GENN
0.8710 ±0.0060
This paper
320
MLP
actual #320 vs paper #420 100 places worse
0.8463
best reported
actual #320 vs paper #420 100 places worse
paper 0.8080 ±0.0030
352
GraphMLP
0.8400 ±0.0060
This paper

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
63
GCN
0.9220 ±0.0440
159
WL
actual #159 vs paper #597 438 places worse
0.9040 ±0.0570
best reported
actual #159 vs paper #597 438 places worse
paper 0.8070 ±0.0300
paper 0.8070 ±0.0300 Δ at pub 0.0970
199
MVGRL
actual #199 vs paper #266 67 places worse
0.8993 ±0.0616
best reported
actual #199 vs paper #266 67 places worse
paper 0.8920 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8920 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0073
257
InfoGraph
actual #257 vs paper #272 15 places worse
0.8930 ±0.0514
best reported
actual #257 vs paper #272 15 places worse
paper 0.8900 ±0.0110

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8900 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0030
352
SimMLP
0.8770 ±0.0020
This paper
351
JOAO
actual #351 vs paper #366 15 places worse
0.8770 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #351 vs paper #366 15 places worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0100

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8740 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.0030 Δ today 0.0030
354
GraphCL
actual #354 vs paper #396 42 places worse
0.8766 ±0.0103
best reported
actual #354 vs paper #396 42 places worse
paper 0.8680 ±0.0130

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8680 ±0.0130 Δ at pub 0.0086
365
DGK
actual #365 vs paper #366 1 place worse
0.8744 ±0.0272
best reported
actual #365 vs paper #366 1 place worse
paper 0.8740 ±0.0270
best at pub: Provably Powerful Graph Networks (NeurIPS 2019)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8740 ±0.0270 Δ at pub 0.0004 Δ today 0.0004
368
MLP + KD
0.8740 ±0.0070
This paper
403
MLP
actual #403 vs paper #767 364 places worse
0.8660 ±0.0495
best reported
actual #403 vs paper #767 364 places worse
paper 0.6720 ±0.0100
paper 0.6720 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1940
407
graph2vec
actual #407 vs paper #515 108 places worse
0.8644 ±0.0125
best reported
actual #407 vs paper #515 108 places worse
paper 0.8320 ±0.0930

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8320 ±0.0930 Δ at pub 0.0324
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
0.8220 ±0.0210
best reported
actual #30 vs paper #111 81 places worse
paper 0.8020 ±0.0190

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8020 ±0.0190 Δ today 0.0200
80
GraphCL
actual #80 vs paper #289 209 places worse
0.8108 ±0.0017
best reported
actual #80 vs paper #289 209 places worse
paper 0.7140 ±0.0120
paper 0.7140 ±0.0120 Δ at pub 0.0968
83
SimMLP
0.8100 ±0.0010
This paper
104
MVGRL
actual #104 vs paper #273 169 places worse
0.8048 ±0.0029
best reported
actual #104 vs paper #273 169 places worse
paper 0.7310 ±0.0060
paper 0.7310 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0738
146
InfoGraph
actual #146 vs paper #294 148 places worse
0.7940
best reported
actual #146 vs paper #294 148 places worse
paper 0.7070 ±0.0110
paper 0.7070 ±0.0110 Δ at pub 0.0870
151
MLP*
actual #151 vs paper #346 195 places worse
0.7920 ±0.0240
best reported
actual #151 vs paper #346 195 places worse
paper 0.5190 ±0.0100
paper 0.5190 ±0.0100 Δ at pub 0.1590 Δ today 0.2730
246
MLP + KD
0.7540 ±0.0150
This paper
248
JOAO
actual #248 vs paper #305 57 places worse
0.7535 ±0.0093
best reported
actual #248 vs paper #305 57 places worse
paper 0.6950 ±0.0040
paper 0.6950 ±0.0040 Δ at pub 0.0585
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