Memorization in Graph Neural Networks

Adarsh Jamadandi, Jing Xu, Adam Dziedzic, Franziska Boenisch

Main figure for Memorization in Graph Neural Networks

Abstract

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have been shown to memorize their training data, yet similar analyses for graph neural networks (GNNs) remain largely under-explored. We introduce NCMemo (Node Classification Memorization), the first framework to quantify label memorization in semi-supervised node classification. We first establish an inverse relationship between memorization and graph homophily, the property that connected nodes share similar labels/features. We find that lower homophily significantly increases memorization, indicating that GNNs rely on memorization to learn less homophilic graphs. Secondly, we analyze GNN training dynamics. We find that the increased memorization in low homophily graphs is tightly coupled to the GNNs' implicit bias on using graph structure during learning. In low homophily regimes, this structure is less informative, hence inducing memorization of the node labels to minimize training loss. Finally, we show that nodes with higher label inconsistency in their feature-space neighborhood are significantly more prone to memorization. Building on our insights into the link between graph homophily and memorization, we investigate graph rewiring as a means to mitigate memorization. Our results demonstrate that this approach effectively reduces memorization without compromising model performance. Moreover, we show that it lowers the privacy risk for previously memorized data points in practice. Thus, our work not only advances understanding of GNN learning but also supports more privacy-preserving GNN deployment.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets Non-standard metric on 3 datasets

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

Heterophilic Graphs

Texas

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 3 values on Avg MemScore , 3 values on MR and 3 values on MemNodes LDS .

Sorted by Avg MemScore. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultAvg MemScore ↑MR ↑MemNodes LDS ↑Paper
1
GATv2
—
0.3701 ± 0.0111
0.3540 ± 0.0140
0.6343 ± 0.0122
Accuracy —
MR 0.3540 ± 0.0140
MemNodes LDS 0.6343 ± 0.0122
This paper
2
GraphSAGE
—
0.3312 ± 0.0087
0.3300 ± 0.0110
0.9048 ± 0.0000
Accuracy —
MR 0.3300 ± 0.0110
MemNodes LDS 0.9048 ± 0.0000
This paper
3
GCN
—
0.3257 ± 0.0107
0.3110 ± 0.0120
0.7300 ± 0.0221
Accuracy —
MR 0.3110 ± 0.0120
MemNodes LDS 0.7300 ± 0.0221
This paper

Cornell

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 3 values on Avg MemScore and 3 values on MR .

Sorted by Avg MemScore. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultAvg MemScore ↑MR ↑Paper
1
GATv2
—
0.4102 ± 0.0089
0.3900 ± 0.0100
Accuracy —
MR 0.3900 ± 0.0100
This paper
2
GCN
—
0.3695 ± 0.0153
0.3650 ± 0.0170
Accuracy —
MR 0.3650 ± 0.0170
This paper
3
GraphSAGE
—
0.3542 ± 0.0130
0.3500 ± 0.0160
Accuracy —
MR 0.3500 ± 0.0160
This paper

Actor

Global leaderboard →

Default metric is Accuracy. The paper reports 0 values on Accuracy , 3 values on Avg MemScore and 3 values on MR .

Sorted by Avg MemScore. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAccuracy ↑ defaultAvg MemScore ↑MR ↑Paper
1
GCN
—
0.3821 ± 0.0087
0.3830 ± 0.0060
Accuracy —
MR 0.3830 ± 0.0060
This paper
2
GraphSAGE
—
0.3715 ± 0.0071
0.3700 ± 0.0050
Accuracy —
MR 0.3700 ± 0.0050
This paper
3
GATv2
—
0.3599 ± 0.0113
0.3590 ± 0.0100
Accuracy —
MR 0.3590 ± 0.0100
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper)