Geom-GCN: Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks
Hongbin Pei, Bingzhe Wei, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Yu Lei, Bo Yang
Code Available — Be the first to reproduce this paper.
ReproduceCode
- github.com/graphdml-uiuc-jlu/geom-gcnOfficialIn paperpytorch★ 303
- github.com/bingzhewei/geom-gcnpytorch★ 303
- github.com/alexfanjn/geomgcn_pygpytorch★ 9
- github.com/KAIDI3270/Geom_GCN_pytorch_implementationpytorch★ 5
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
| Dataset | Model | Metric | Claimed | Verified | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actor | Geom-GCN-S | Accuracy | 30.3 | — | Unverified |
| Actor | Geom-GCN-P | Accuracy | 31.63 | — | Unverified |
| Actor | Geom-GCN-I | Accuracy | 29.09 | — | Unverified |
| Chameleon | Geom-GCN-P | Accuracy | 60.9 | — | Unverified |
| Chameleon | Geom-GCN-S | Accuracy | 59.96 | — | Unverified |
| Chameleon | Geom-GCN-I | Accuracy | 60.31 | — | Unverified |
| Chameleon (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 60.9 | — | Unverified |
| CiteSeer (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 77.99 | — | Unverified |
| Cora (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 85.27 | — | Unverified |
| Cornell | Geom-GCN-S | Accuracy | 55.68 | — | Unverified |
| Cornell | Geom-GCN-P | Accuracy | 60.81 | — | Unverified |
| Cornell | Geom-GCN-I | Accuracy | 56.76 | — | Unverified |
| Cornell (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 60.81 | — | Unverified |
| Film (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 31.63 | — | Unverified |
| PubMed (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 90.05 | — | Unverified |
| Squirrel | Geom-GCN-S | Accuracy | 36.24 | — | Unverified |
| Squirrel | Geom-GCN-I | Accuracy | 33.32 | — | Unverified |
| Squirrel | Geom-GCN-P | Accuracy | 38.14 | — | Unverified |
| Squirrel (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 38.14 | — | Unverified |
| Texas | Geom-GCN-P | Accuracy | 67.57 | — | Unverified |
| Texas | Geom-GCN-S | Accuracy | 59.73 | — | Unverified |
| Texas | Geom-GCN-I | Accuracy | 57.58 | — | Unverified |
| Texas (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 67.57 | — | Unverified |
| Wisconsin | Geom-GCN-S | Accuracy | 56.67 | — | Unverified |
| Wisconsin | Geom-GCN-P | Accuracy | 64.12 | — | Unverified |
| Wisconsin | Geom-GCN-I | Accuracy | 58.24 | — | Unverified |
| Wisconsin (60%/20%/20% random splits) | Geom-GCN* | 1:1 Accuracy | 64.12 | — | Unverified |