Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Improving Graph Neural Networks by Learning Continuous Edge Directions

About

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) traditionally employ a message-passing mechanism that resembles diffusion over undirected graphs, which often leads to homogenization of node features and reduced discriminative power in tasks such as node classification. Our key insight for addressing this limitation is to assign fuzzy edge directions -- that can vary continuously from node $i$ pointing to node $j$ to vice versa -- to the edges of a graph so that features can preferentially flow in one direction between nodes to enable long-range information transmission across the graph. We also introduce a novel complex-valued Laplacian for directed graphs with fuzzy edges where the real and imaginary parts represent information flow in opposite directions. Using this Laplacian, we propose a general framework, called Continuous Edge Direction (CoED) GNN, for learning on graphs with fuzzy edges and prove its expressivity limits using a generalization of the Weisfeiler-Leman (WL) graph isomorphism test for directed graphs with fuzzy edges. Our architecture aggregates neighbor features scaled by the learned edge directions and processes the aggregated messages from in-neighbors and out-neighbors separately alongside the self-features of the nodes. Since continuous edge directions are differentiable, they can be learned jointly with the GNN weights via gradient-based optimization. CoED GNN is particularly well-suited for graph ensemble data where the graph structure remains fixed but multiple realizations of node features are available, such as in gene regulatory networks, web connectivity graphs, and power grids. We demonstrate through extensive experiments on both synthetic and real graph ensemble datasets that learning continuous edge directions significantly improves performance both for undirected and directed graphs compared with existing methods.

Seong Ho Pahng, Sahand Hormoz• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Node ClassificationCiteseer (test)
Accuracy0.7714
1013
Node ClassificationCora (test)
Mean Accuracy87.02
951
Node ClassificationChameleon
Accuracy47.27
936
Node ClassificationSquirrel
Accuracy45.5
815
Node ClassificationChameleon (test)
Mean Accuracy47.27
425
Node ClassificationTexas (test)
Mean Accuracy84.59
402
Node ClassificationRoman-Empire
Accuracy92.17
398
Node ClassificationSquirrel (test)
Mean Accuracy45.5
353
Node ClassificationWisconsin (test)
Mean Accuracy87.84
346
Node ClassificationPhoto (test)
Mean Accuracy95.83
241
Showing 10 of 19 rows

Other info

Code

Follow for update