ALINC: Active Learning for Inductive Node Classification via Graph Sampling

Pascal Plettenberg, Denis Huseljic, André Alcalde, Bernhard Sick, Josephine M. Thomas

Main figure for ALINC: Active Learning for Inductive Node Classification via Graph Sampling

Abstract

Active learning (AL) for node classification typically focuses on selecting the most informative nodes for annotation within one or a few large graphs (e.g., in social network analysis). However, in other domains, such as molecular chemistry or electronic design automation, datasets consist of thousands of independent graphs. In many of these inductive settings, annotating an individual node requires a full-graph analysis, which effectively yields the remaining node labels on-the-fly. Therefore, these scenarios require AL strategies that select entire graphs instead of single nodes, a problem which has not been tackled in the literature so far. Thus, we introduce ALINC, an AL framework for inductive node classification via graph sampling. It bridges the existing methodological gap by elevating node-level utility measures to graph-level selection criteria through various aggregation mechanisms. In an extensive benchmark including ten strategies, three aggregation methods, and four datasets, we identify CoreSet, TypiClust, and BADGE as the top-performing graph sampling strategies. Our detailed analysis further reveals that the choice of the aggregation method is pivotal, as it substantially affects model performance and annotation costs. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of ALINC in two use case studies: site-of-metabolism prediction in molecules and design automation of printed circuit board schematics.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 3 datasets Non-standard metric on 3 datasets

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

LRGB

COCO-SP

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

Sorted by AULC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAULC ↑Paper
1
ANRMAB (Max)
6.6800 ±0.1300
This paper
2
BADGE (Sum)
6.6800 ±0.1800
This paper
3
TypiClust (Mean)
6.6300 ±0.2400
This paper
4
Margin (Max)
6.5800 ±0.2100
This paper
5
Graph-Density (Max)
6.5800 ±0.2700
This paper
6
AGE (Sum)
6.5700 ±0.1800
This paper
7
Node-Density (Max)
6.5500 ±0.1800
This paper
8
CoreSet (Mean)
6.5400 ±0.1600
This paper
9
Random
6.4500 ±0.2700
This paper
10
Degree (Sum)
6.4500 ±0.1000
This paper
11
Entropy (Mean)
6.2600 ±0.1500
This paper

GNNBenchmark

CLUSTER

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

Sorted by AULC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAULC ↑Paper
1
Degree (Max)
62.3600 ±0.2600
This paper
2
AGE (Mean)
62.3100 ±0.1900
This paper
3
CoreSet (Sum)
62.1900 ±0.2800
This paper
4
Node-Density (Sum)
61.9800 ±0.2800
This paper
5
Margin (Sum)
60.9100 ±0.1600
This paper
6
ANRMAB (Sum)
60.7400 ±0.2700
This paper
7
TypiClust (Sum)
60.5800 ±0.2000
This paper
8
Entropy (Sum)
60.5700 ±0.2200
This paper
9
BADGE (Sum)
60.2100 ±0.1900
This paper
10
Random
59.9700 ±0.2000
This paper
11
Graph-Density (Mean)
59.4800 ±0.2800
This paper

PATTERN

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

Sorted by AULC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAULC ↑Paper
1
TypiClust (Sum)
81.6200 ±0.4900
This paper
2
BADGE (Max)
81.5000 ±0.2900
This paper
3
CoreSet (Mean)
81.3400 ±0.6900
This paper
4
Graph-Density (Sum)
80.4600 ±0.8100
This paper
5
Node-Density (Max)
80.0100 ±0.5300
This paper
6
AGE (Max)
79.8900 ±1.0300
This paper
7
Random
79.5700 ±0.9700
This paper
8
ANRMAB (Sum)
79.5300 ±0.6500
This paper
9
Degree (Max)
79.4400 ±1.4700
This paper
10
Entropy (Max)
78.1000 ±1.7700
This paper
11
Margin (Max)
77.7000 ±1.9100
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Baseline / comparison (this paper)