SOTAVerified

Geom-GCN: Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks

2020-02-13ICLR 2020Code Available1· sign in to hype

Hongbin Pei, Bingzhe Wei, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Yu Lei, Bo Yang

Code Available — Be the first to reproduce this paper.

Reproduce

Code

Abstract

Message-passing neural networks (MPNNs) have been successfully applied to representation learning on graphs in a variety of real-world applications. However, two fundamental weaknesses of MPNNs' aggregators limit their ability to represent graph-structured data: losing the structural information of nodes in neighborhoods and lacking the ability to capture long-range dependencies in disassortative graphs. Few studies have noticed the weaknesses from different perspectives. From the observations on classical neural network and network geometry, we propose a novel geometric aggregation scheme for graph neural networks to overcome the two weaknesses. The behind basic idea is the aggregation on a graph can benefit from a continuous space underlying the graph. The proposed aggregation scheme is permutation-invariant and consists of three modules, node embedding, structural neighborhood, and bi-level aggregation. We also present an implementation of the scheme in graph convolutional networks, termed Geom-GCN (Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks), to perform transductive learning on graphs. Experimental results show the proposed Geom-GCN achieved state-of-the-art performance on a wide range of open datasets of graphs. Code is available at https://github.com/graphdml-uiuc-jlu/geom-gcn.

Tasks

Benchmark Results

DatasetModelMetricClaimedVerifiedStatus
ActorGeom-GCN-SAccuracy30.3Unverified
ActorGeom-GCN-PAccuracy31.63Unverified
ActorGeom-GCN-IAccuracy29.09Unverified
ChameleonGeom-GCN-PAccuracy60.9Unverified
ChameleonGeom-GCN-SAccuracy59.96Unverified
ChameleonGeom-GCN-IAccuracy60.31Unverified
Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy60.9Unverified
CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy77.99Unverified
Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy85.27Unverified
CornellGeom-GCN-SAccuracy55.68Unverified
CornellGeom-GCN-PAccuracy60.81Unverified
CornellGeom-GCN-IAccuracy56.76Unverified
Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy60.81Unverified
Film (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy31.63Unverified
PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy90.05Unverified
SquirrelGeom-GCN-SAccuracy36.24Unverified
SquirrelGeom-GCN-IAccuracy33.32Unverified
SquirrelGeom-GCN-PAccuracy38.14Unverified
Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy38.14Unverified
TexasGeom-GCN-PAccuracy67.57Unverified
TexasGeom-GCN-SAccuracy59.73Unverified
TexasGeom-GCN-IAccuracy57.58Unverified
Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy67.57Unverified
WisconsinGeom-GCN-SAccuracy56.67Unverified
WisconsinGeom-GCN-PAccuracy64.12Unverified
WisconsinGeom-GCN-IAccuracy58.24Unverified
Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits)Geom-GCN*1:1 Accuracy64.12Unverified

Reproductions