Editable Graph Neural Network for Node Classifications
Zirui Liu, Zhimeng Jiang, Shaochen Zhong, Kaixiong Zhou, Li Li, Rui, Chen, Soo-Hyun Choi, Xia Hu

TL;DR
This paper introduces EGNN, a novel method for editing GNNs that corrects misclassifications without propagating changes across the graph, maintaining accuracy and efficiency.
Contribution
EGNN is the first neighbor propagation-free model editing approach for GNNs, significantly reducing accuracy drops and improving correction effectiveness.
Findings
EGNN outperforms baselines in correction accuracy
EGNN maintains low accuracy drop during editing
EGNN demonstrates high efficiency in training and memory usage
Abstract
Despite Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have achieved prominent success in many graph-based learning problem, such as credit risk assessment in financial networks and fake news detection in social networks. However, the trained GNNs still make errors and these errors may cause serious negative impact on society. \textit{Model editing}, which corrects the model behavior on wrongly predicted target samples while leaving model predictions unchanged on unrelated samples, has garnered significant interest in the fields of computer vision and natural language processing. However, model editing for graph neural networks (GNNs) is rarely explored, despite GNNs' widespread applicability. To fill the gap, we first observe that existing model editing methods significantly deteriorate prediction accuracy (up to accuracy drop) in GNNs while a slight accuracy drop in multi-layer perception (MLP).…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2024
Strength: • The paper claims to be the first work studying model editing on GNNs. • They choose to utilize loss landscape to demonstrate the reason of accuracy drops after editing, providing a visualization of the potential rationale; a theoretical analysis in appendix also offers more solid explanation. • Seemingly good results on benchmarks.
Weakness: * Adding an additional MLP to compensate the original model is an interesting idea. However I have big concerns about the soundness of Algorithm 1. For example, if we require all parameters of the MLP to be zero, it is almost an optimum to make L_loc and L_task lowest, especially if the pretrained GNN model already has an MLP component (e.g. using skip connections of jumping knowledge). * The motivation of editing GNN models is not clear enough. The motivation starts from mitigating
1. The authors can leverage the GNNs’ structure learning meanwhile avoiding the spreading edition errors to guarantee the overall node classification task. 2. The experimental results validate the solution which could address all the erroneous samples. 3. Via freezing GNNs’ part, EGNN is scalable to address misclassified nodes in the million-size graphs.
1. The motivation is not clear. Since the authors trained the model on a subgraph containing only the training node, how node aggregation in GNNs will spread the editing effect throughout the whole graph? 2. The experiment setting is not clear. The authors trained the model on a subgraph containing only the training node, then what graph is used for editing?
1. The problem setting is interesting. 2. The motivation example in Section 3.1 is intuitive.
1. My major concern regarding this paper is the performance of the proposed method. Though Tables 2, 3, and 4 show great improvement compared with GD and ENN, the actual improvement is still limited. Based on the experimental results of GCN and GraphSAGE without any graph editing on these datasets (e.g., the performance of GCN reported in [SUGRL](https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/20748) Tables 1 and 2), GCN achieves 91.6\% accuracy on A-Photo dataset and 84.5\% accuracy on A-Compu
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Neural Networks · Brain Tumor Detection and Classification · Online Learning and Analytics
