Pruning Spurious Subgraphs for Graph Out-of-Distribution Generalization

Tianjun Yao, Haoxuan Li, Yongqiang Chen, Tongliang Liu, Le Song, Eric P. Xing, Zhiqiang Shen

Main figure for Pruning Spurious Subgraphs for Graph Out-of-Distribution Generalization

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) often encounter significant performance degradation under distribution shifts between training and test data, hindering their applicability in real-world scenarios. Recent studies have proposed various methods to address the out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization challenge, with many methods in the graph domain focusing on directly identifying an invariant subgraph that is predictive of the target label. However, we argue that identifying the edges from the invariant subgraph directly is challenging and error-prone, especially when some spurious edges exhibit strong correlations with the targets. In this paper, we propose PrunE, the first pruning-based graph OOD method that eliminates spurious edges to improve OOD generalizability. By pruning spurious edges, PrunE retains the invariant subgraph more comprehensively, which is critical for OOD generalization. Specifically, PrunE employs two regularization terms to prune spurious edges: 1) to exclude uninformative spurious edges, and 2) to further suppress the occurrence of spurious edges. Through theoretical analysis and extensive experiments, we show that PrunE achieves superior OOD performance and outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods significantly. Codes are available at: https://github.com/tianyao-aka/PrunE-GraphOOD.

Proposed method: PrunE

Benchmark Results

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

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

OGB

ogbg-molpcba

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports ROC-AUC; the dataset default is AP. Values below use ROC-AUC only.

Sorted by ROC-AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelROC-AUC ↑Paper
1
PrunE
0.8159 ±0.0535
This paper
2
EGTAS
0.7919 ±0.0137
3
UGTs
0.7840
9
DropEdge
actual #9 vs paper #27 18 places worse
0.7531 ±0.0457
best reported
actual #9 vs paper #27 18 places worse
paper 0.6649 ±0.0155
paper 0.6649 ±0.0155 Δ at pub 0.0882
10
G-Mixup
actual #10 vs paper #22 12 places worse
0.7374 ±0.0707
best reported
actual #10 vs paper #22 12 places worse
paper 0.6744 ±0.0162

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6744 ±0.0162 Δ at pub 0.0630
11
AIA
0.7079 ±0.0153
This paper
12
GIN
0.7042 ±0.0478
15
GREA
0.6972 ±0.0166
This paper
17
VREx
0.6874 ±0.0103
This paper
19
LiSA
0.6811 ±0.0052
This paper
20
ERM
0.6810 ±0.0168
This paper
21
Cal
0.6806 ±0.0260
This paper
22
FLAG
0.6769 ±0.0236
This paper
23
IRM
0.6722 ±0.0115
This paper
24
DisC
0.6712 ±0.0211
This paper
26
DIR
0.6686 ±0.0225
This paper
27
GSAT
0.6678 ±0.0145
This paper
28
GroupDRO
0.6647 ±0.0239
This paper
30
CIGA
0.6492 ±0.0209
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)