DDFI: Diverse and Distribution-aware Missing Feature Imputation via Two-step Reconstruction
About
Incomplete node features are ubiquitous in real-world scenarios, e.g., the attributes of web users may be partly private, which causes the performance of Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to decline significantly. Feature propagation (FP) is a well-known method that performs well for imputation of missing node features on graphs, but it still has the following three issues: 1) it struggles with graphs that are not fully connected, 2) imputed features face the over-smoothing problem, and 3) FP is tailored for transductive tasks, overlooking the feature distribution shift in inductive tasks. To address these challenges, we introduce DDFI, a Diverse and Distribution-aware Missing Feature Imputation method that combines feature propagation with a graph-based Masked AutoEncoder (MAE) in a nontrivial manner. It first designs a simple yet effective algorithm, namely Co-Label Linking (CLL), that randomly connects nodes in the training set with the same label to enhance the performance on graphs with numerous connected components. Then we develop a novel two-step representation generation process at the inference stage. Specifically, instead of directly using FP-imputed features as input during inference, DDFI further reconstructs the features through the whole MAE to reduce feature distribution shift in the inductive tasks and enhance the diversity of node features. Meanwhile, since existing feature imputation methods for graphs only evaluate by simulating the missing scenes with manually masking the features, we collect a new dataset called Sailing from the records of voyages that contains naturally missing features to help better evaluate the effectiveness. Extensive experiments conducted on six public datasets and Sailing show that DDFI outperforms the state-of-the-art methods under both transductive and inductive settings.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Node Classification | Reddit (test) | Accuracy93.95 | 134 | |
| Node Classification | CiteSeer Uniform Missing (test) | Accuracy62.9 | 16 | |
| Inductive Node Classification | Flickr (test) | Accuracy51.97 | 14 | |
| Node Classification | PubMed Structural Missing (test) | Accuracy77.8 | 14 | |
| Node Classification | PubMed Uniform Missing (test) | Accuracy78.56 | 14 | |
| Node Classification | OGBN-Arxiv uniform missing (test) | Accuracy69.54 | 13 | |
| Node Classification | OGBN-Arxiv structural missing (test) | Accuracy68.15 | 13 | |
| Transductive Node Classification | Cora Uniform missing features (test) | Accuracy79.62 | 8 | |
| Transductive Node Classification | Cora Structural missing features (test) | Accuracy77.44 | 8 | |
| Transductive Node Classification | Citeseer Structural missing features (test) | Accuracy60.04 | 8 |