Efficient Learning on Large Graphs using a Densifying Regularity Lemma

Jonathan Kouchly, Ben Finkelshtein, Michael M. Bronstein, Ron Levie

Main figure for Efficient Learning on Large Graphs using a Densifying Regularity Lemma

Abstract

Learning on large graphs presents significant challenges, with traditional Message Passing Neural Networks suffering from computational and memory costs scaling linearly with the number of edges. We introduce the Intersecting Block Graph (IBG), a low-rank factorization of large directed graphs based on combinations of intersecting bipartite components, each consisting of a pair of communities, for source and target nodes. By giving less weight to non-edges, we show how an IBG can efficiently approximate any graph, sparse or dense. Specifically, we prove a constructive version of the weak regularity lemma: for any chosen accuracy, every graph can be approximated by a dense IBG whose rank depends only on that accuracy. This improves over prior versions of the lemma, where the rank depended on the number of nodes for sparse graphs. Our method allows for efficient approximation of large graphs that are both directed and sparse, a crucial capability for many real-world applications. We then introduce a graph neural network architecture operating on the IBG representation of the graph and demonstrating competitive performance on node classification, spatio-temporal graph analysis, and knowledge graph completion, while having memory and computational complexity linear in the number of nodes rather than edges.

Proposed method: IBG-NN

Benchmark Results

Tested on 4 datasets 7 baseline values reported too low

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

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
Hetero-S (GAT 8-layer)
0.8693
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.8586 ±0.0180
3
GAT
actual #3 vs paper #76 73 places worse
0.8560
best reported
actual #3 vs paper #76 73 places worse
paper 0.6682 ±0.0256
paper 0.6682 ±0.0256 Δ at pub 0.1878
8
FaberNet
0.8033 ±0.0119
This paper
9
IBG-NN
0.8015 ±0.0113
This paper
15
DirGNN
actual #15 vs paper #15
0.7974 ±0.0140
actual #15 vs paper #15
paper 0.7974 ±0.0140
24
GPR-GNN
actual #24 vs paper #24
0.7830 ±0.0060
actual #24 vs paper #24
paper 0.7830 ±0.0060
paper 0.7830 ±0.0060 Δ at pub 0.0852
25
FSGNN
actual #25 vs paper #25
0.7827 ±0.0128
actual #25 vs paper #25
paper 0.7827 ±0.0128
paper 0.7827 ±0.0128 Δ at pub 0.4267
45
GloGNN
actual #45 vs paper #45
0.7133 ±0.0242
best reported
actual #45 vs paper #45
paper 0.7121 ±0.0184

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7121 ±0.0184 Δ today 0.0012
52
GCN
actual #52 vs paper #95 43 places worse
0.7033
best reported
actual #52 vs paper #95 43 places worse
paper 0.6482 ±0.0224
paper 0.6482 ±0.0224 Δ at pub 0.0551
102
ICG-NN
0.6390 ±0.0213
This paper
108
SAGE
0.6340 ±0.0300
133
H2GCN
actual #133 vs paper #217 84 places worse
0.6030 ±0.0231
best reported
actual #133 vs paper #217 84 places worse
paper 0.4621 ±0.0299
paper 0.4621 ±0.0299 Δ at pub 0.1409
169
MLP
actual #169 vs paper #217 48 places worse
0.5429
best reported
actual #169 vs paper #217 48 places worse
paper 0.4621 ±0.0299
paper 0.4621 ±0.0299 Δ at pub 0.0808
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
IBG-NN
0.7763 ±0.0179
This paper
2
Dir-GNN+CNA
0.7747 ±0.0128
3
DHGNN
0.7684 ±0.0161
4
FaberNet
0.7671 ±0.0192
This paper
9
DirGNN
actual #9 vs paper #9
0.7513 ±0.0195
actual #9 vs paper #9
paper 0.7513 ±0.0195
10
GPR-GNN
actual #10 vs paper #10
0.7480 ±0.0050
actual #10 vs paper #10
paper 0.7480 ±0.0050
paper 0.7480 ±0.0050 Δ at pub 0.2437
11
FSGNN
actual #11 vs paper #11
0.7416
best reported
actual #11 vs paper #11
paper 0.7410 ±0.0189

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7410 ±0.0189 Δ at pub 0.0006
19
GloGNN
actual #19 vs paper #55 36 places worse
0.7121 ±0.0184
best reported
actual #19 vs paper #55 36 places worse
paper 0.5788 ±0.0176
34
ICG-NN
0.6402 ±0.0167
This paper
39
H2GCN
actual #39 vs paper #39
0.6190 ±0.0140
actual #39 vs paper #39
paper 0.6190 ±0.0140
46
GCN
actual #46 vs paper #77 31 places worse
0.6067
best reported
actual #46 vs paper #77 31 places worse
paper 0.5343 ±0.0201
paper 0.5343 ±0.0201 Δ at pub 0.0724
67
GAT
actual #67 vs paper #157 90 places worse
0.5630 ±0.0220
best reported
actual #67 vs paper #157 90 places worse
paper 0.4072 ±0.0155
paper 0.4072 ±0.0155 Δ at pub 0.1558
120
SAGE
0.4460 ±0.0130
172
MLP
actual #172 vs paper #243 71 places worse
0.3930 ±0.0079
best reported
actual #172 vs paper #243 71 places worse
paper 0.2877 ±0.0156
paper 0.2877 ±0.0156 Δ at pub 0.0786 Δ today 0.1053

Heterophily Benchmark

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
Polynormer-r
0.8591 ±0.0074
2
DC-GNN
0.8588 ±0.0081
3
TANGO-GPS
0.8566 ±0.0101
28
GAT
actual #28 vs paper #47 19 places worse
0.8443 ±0.0100
best reported
actual #28 vs paper #47 19 places worse
paper 0.8370 ±0.0047

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8370 ±0.0047 Δ at pub 0.0073
44
IBG-NN
0.8376 ±0.0051
This paper
46
ICG-NN
0.8373 ±0.0078
This paper
50
GCN
0.8364 ±0.0067
This paper
76
SAGE
0.8243 ±0.0044
113
H2GCN
actual #113 vs paper #141 28 places worse
0.7815
best reported
actual #113 vs paper #141 28 places worse
paper 0.7335 ±0.0101
139
MLP
actual #139 vs paper #141 2 places worse
0.7362 ±0.0020
best reported
actual #139 vs paper #141 2 places worse
paper 0.7295 ±0.0106
best at pub: Evolving Computation Graphs (ICML 2023)

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7295 ±0.0106 Δ today 0.0067
140
GloGNN
0.7339 ±0.0117
This paper
143
GPR-GNN
0.7294 ±0.0097
This paper

LINKX Benchmarks

#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
LargeScaleNet
0.6582 ±0.0036
2
S² DirGCN
0.6495 ±0.0033
3
FaberNet
0.6462 ±0.0101
10
IBG-NN
0.6014
This paper
31
GCN
0.4602 ±0.0026
56
MLP
0.3670 ±0.0021
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