Adaptive Universal Generalized PageRank Graph Neural Network

ICLR 2021  ·  Eli Chien, Jianhao Peng, Pan Li, Olgica Milenkovic ·

In many important graph data processing applications the acquired information includes both node features and observations of the graph topology. Graph neural networks (GNNs) are designed to exploit both sources of evidence but they do not optimally trade-off their utility and integrate them in a manner that is also universal. Here, universality refers to independence on homophily or heterophily graph assumptions. We address these issues by introducing a new Generalized PageRank (GPR) GNN architecture that adaptively learns the GPR weights so as to jointly optimize node feature and topological information extraction, regardless of the extent to which the node labels are homophilic or heterophilic. Learned GPR weights automatically adjust to the node label pattern, irrelevant on the type of initialization, and thereby guarantee excellent learning performance for label patterns that are usually hard to handle. Furthermore, they allow one to avoid feature over-smoothing, a process which renders feature information nondiscriminative, without requiring the network to be shallow. Our accompanying theoretical analysis of the GPR-GNN method is facilitated by novel synthetic benchmark datasets generated by the so-called contextual stochastic block model. We also compare the performance of our GNN architecture with that of several state-of-the-art GNNs on the problem of node-classification, using well-known benchmark homophilic and heterophilic datasets. The results demonstrate that GPR-GNN offers significant performance improvement compared to existing techniques on both synthetic and benchmark data.

PDF Abstract ICLR 2021 PDF ICLR 2021 Abstract
Task Dataset Model Metric Name Metric Value Global Rank Result Benchmark
Node Classification Actor GPRGCN Accuracy 35.16 ± 0.9 # 35
Node Classification Chameleon GPRGCN Accuracy 62.59 ± 2.04 # 44
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 62.59 ± 2.04 # 22
Node Classification Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 67.48 ± 0.40 # 13
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Chameleon(60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 67.48 ± 0.40 # 12
Node Classification Citeseer (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 77.13 ± 1.67 # 11
Node Classification CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 67.63 ± 0.38 # 30
Node Classification Cora (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.95 ± 1.18 # 13
Node Classification Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 79.51 ± 0.36 # 28
Node Classification Cornell GPRGCN Accuracy 78.11 ± 6.55 # 38
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 78.11 ± 6.55 # 20
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 91.36 ± 0.70 # 17
Node Classification Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 91.36 ± 0.70 # 17
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 91.30 ± 0.70 # 18
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Deezer-Europe GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 66.90±0.50 # 9
Node Classification Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 39.30 ± 0.27 # 19
Node Classification genius GPRGCN Accuracy 90.05 ± 0.31 # 12
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs genius GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 90.05 ± 0.31 # 14
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Penn94 GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 81.38 ± 0.16 # 15
Node Classification Penn94 GPRGCN Accuracy 81.38 ± 0.16 # 15
Node Classification PubMed (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 87.54 ± 0.38 # 24
Node Classification PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 85.07 ± 0.09 # 33
Node Classification Squirrel GPRGCN Accuracy 46.31 ± 2.46 # 38
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Squirrel (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 46.31 ± 2.46 # 20
Node Classification Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 49.93 ± 0.53 # 14
Node Classification Texas GPRGCN Accuracy 81.35 ± 5.32 # 41
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 81.35 ± 5.32 # 19
Node Classification Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 92.92 ± 0.61 # 15
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 92.92 ± 0.61 # 14
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Texas(60%/20%/20% random splits) MLP-2 1:1 Accuracy 92.26 ± 0.71 # 16
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs twitch-gamers GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 61.89 ± 0.29 # 21
Node Classification Wisconsin GPRGCN Accuracy 82.55 ± 6.23 # 40
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin (48%/32%/20% fixed splits) GPRGCN 1:1 Accuracy 82.55 ± 6.23 # 19
Node Classification Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 93.75 ± 2.37 # 15
Node Classification on Non-Homophilic (Heterophilic) Graphs Wisconsin(60%/20%/20% random splits) GPRGNN 1:1 Accuracy 93.75 ± 2.37 # 15

Methods


No methods listed for this paper. Add relevant methods here