NeurIPS 2024

Graph Neural Networks Need Cluster-Normalize-Activate Modules

Arseny Skryagin, Felix Divo, Mohammad Ali, D. Dhami, K. Kersting

Main figure for Graph Neural Networks Need Cluster-Normalize-Activate Modules

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are non-Euclidean deep learning models for graph-structured data. Despite their successful and diverse applications, oversmoothing prohibits deep architectures due to node features converging to a single fixed point. This severely limits their potential to solve complex tasks. To counteract this tendency, we propose a plug-and-play module consisting of three steps: Cluster Normalize Activate (CNA). By applying CNA modules, GNNs search and form super nodes in each layer, which are normalized and activated individually. We demonstrate in node classification and property prediction tasks that CNA significantly improves the accuracy over the state-of-the-art. Particularly, CNA reaches 94.18\ It further benefits GNNs in regression tasks as well, reducing the mean squared error compared to all baselines. At the same time, GNNs with CNA require substantially fewer learnable parameters than competing architectures.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 10 datasets 1 baseline value reported too low Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

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

Classic

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9418 ±0.0033
This paper
2
GCN+CNA
0.9366 ±0.0048
This paper
3
TransformerConv
0.9350 ±0.0058
This paper
4
GAT + CNA
0.9294 ±0.0071
This paper
20
SSP
actual #20 vs paper #20
0.9016 ±0.0059
actual #20 vs paper #20
paper 0.9016 ±0.0059

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9016 ±0.0059 Δ at pub 0.0400
21
GCN
actual #21 vs paper #572 551 places worse
0.9004
best reported
actual #21 vs paper #572 551 places worse
paper 0.8159 ±0.0043
paper 0.8159 ±0.0043 Δ at pub 0.0845
39
SAGE
0.8911 ±0.0012
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
This paper
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
17
ACMII-Snowball-2
0.8207 ±0.0104
This paper
44
GCN
0.8033 ±0.0088
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LGTL
0.9518 ±0.0011
2
MixHop (LO)
0.9513 ±0.0038
3
GraphSAGE (LO)
0.9511 ±0.0036
18
GCN
0.9296 ±0.0015
65
TransformerConv+CNA
0.9016 ±0.0013
This paper
210
MLP
0.8690 ±0.0074
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9703 ±0.0019
2
GAT
0.9669 ±0.0014
3
GAT+T
0.9660 ±0.0007
7
SAGE
0.9643 ±0.0027
15
CNA (TransformerConv)
0.9596 ±0.0029
This paper
19
CGT
actual #19 vs paper #20 1 place worse
0.9580 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #20 1 place worse
paper 0.9573 ±0.0084

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9573 ±0.0084 Δ today 0.0007
390
MLP
0.9128 ±0.0063
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
GraphTARIF
0.9461 ±0.0017
2
GCN
0.9412 ±0.0008
3
GAT
0.9398 ±0.0022
8
SAGE
0.9351 ±0.0006
14
CNA (TransformerConv)
0.9268 ±0.0027
This paper
33
Exphormer
actual #33 vs paper #43 10 places worse
0.9180 ±0.0035
best reported
actual #33 vs paper #43 10 places worse
paper 0.9147 ±0.0017

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.9147 ±0.0017 Δ today 0.0033
320
MLP
0.8463

OGB

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
P^2GNN
0.9672 ±0.0147
2
DoG
0.9660 ±0.0210
3
GPF-plus
0.9583 ±0.0419
33
2-HiGCN
0.9245 ±0.0073
This paper
34
MLP
0.9230 ±0.0070
54
GraphSAGE+CNA
0.9000 ±0.0365
This paper
53
GraphSAGE
0.9000 ±0.0365
This paper
189
SAGE
0.8269
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
This paper
3
GAT
0.8560
7
Dir-GNN
actual #7 vs paper #7
0.8048 ±0.0146
actual #7 vs paper #7
paper 0.8048 ±0.0146

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.8048 ±0.0146 Δ at pub 0.0078
52
GCN
0.7033
169
MLP
0.5429
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
This paper
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
7
Dir-GNN
actual #7 vs paper #8 1 place worse
0.7560 ±0.0190
best reported
actual #7 vs paper #8 1 place worse
paper 0.7531 ±0.0192

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7531 ±0.0192 Δ at pub 0.0029
46
GCN
0.6067
172
MLP
0.3930 ±0.0079

Heterogeneous Graph Benchmarks

DBLP

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports Accuracy; the dataset default is Micro-F1. Values below use Accuracy only.

Sorted by Accuracy. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

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)