Evolving Computation Graphs
Andreea Deac, Jian Tang

TL;DR
This paper introduces Evolving Computation Graphs (ECGs), a method that rewires GNNs to better handle heterophilic data by connecting nodes likely in the same class, improving performance without domain knowledge.
Contribution
ECGs is a novel approach that rewires GNNs based on weaker classifiers to enhance performance on heterophilic datasets, addressing a key limitation of traditional GNNs.
Findings
ECGs outperforms baseline methods on heterophilic datasets.
Rewiring based on node similarity improves GNN accuracy.
Method is simple, intuitive, and domain-agnostic.
Abstract
Graph neural networks (GNNs) have demonstrated success in modeling relational data, especially for data that exhibits homophily: when a connection between nodes tends to imply that they belong to the same class. However, while this assumption is true in many relevant situations, there are important real-world scenarios that violate this assumption, and this has spurred research into improving GNNs for these cases. In this work, we propose Evolving Computation Graphs (ECGs), a novel method for enhancing GNNs on heterophilic datasets. Our approach builds on prior theoretical insights linking node degree, high homophily, and inter vs intra-class embedding similarity by rewiring the GNNs' computation graph towards adding edges that connect nodes that are likely to be in the same class. We utilise weaker classifiers to identify these edges, ultimately improving GNN performance on…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1. The auxiliary classifier is interesting and useful as evaluated in the experiments. 2. This paper is easy to follow and understand.
1. The main contribution is unclear. It appears that the main contribution is the framework design as shown in Fig.1. However, existing methods such as WRGAT [1] also use a similar pipeline where graph construction and learning are separated into two stages. The four embedding extraction methods used in step 1 are intriguing, but the paper only introduces them without justifying their advantages and disadvantages compared to each other and methods in the literature. 2. The evaluations of the
1. The proposed method is simple and easy to implement. 2. The paper is clearly written and easy to follow. 3. The improved performance is achieved on the recently proposed heterophilous benchmark.
1. **Comparison with existing methods.** There are many rewiring methods in the literature, but there is no comparison with such approaches. In particular, some methods like Suresh et al. (2021) consider the similarity based on the graph structure. Thus, they are similar to the struc2vec variant of EGC. According to Tables 3 and 4, struc2vec is competitive and often outperforms other approaches. 2. **Motivation.** The main motivation for graph rewiring is improved homophily For instance, it is
1. A very simple approach. 1. The results look very promising.
1. **Incremental novelty:** Similar ideas have been tried for example in [A], although the paper does not explicitly call out heterophily, but they working in the setting of noisy graphs and heterophily can be considered a noisy graphs where all the edges connecting nodes of different classes as noise. 1. **Missing Baselines:** The first point brings us to the next, [A] proposes a more enhanced version which learns the graph using bi-level optimization and such methods should have been considere
1. Presentation is good. The paper is easy to follow. 2. The approach seems to be novel to the best of my knowledge.( Atleast for the problem in hand) 3. The authors additionally visualize the obtained node embeddings based upon original graph and new graphs. This enhances clarity of work. 4. The experiment evaluation is good. 5. The authors evaluate on datasets with varying degree of homophily. The performance of the proposed model is pretty good on varying degree of homophily. Further, th
1. In page 2, when the authors say "propose modifying their computation graph". I believe the context w.r.t the heterophilic graphs is somewhat missing in this. Could the authors motivate this better w.r.t the heterophily graphs? 2. For MLP in page4, it is not clear whether node feature X is used or not.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Graph Neural Networks · HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
