SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2306.00899

Pitfalls in Link Prediction with Graph Neural Networks: Understanding the Impact of Target-link Inclusion & Better Practices

Abstract

While Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are remarkably successful in a variety of high-impact applications, we demonstrate that, in link prediction, the common practices of including the edges being predicted in the graph at training and/or test have outsized impact on the performance of low-degree nodes. We theoretically and empirically investigate how these practices impact node-level performance across different degrees. Specifically, we explore three issues that arise: (I1) overfitting; (I2) distribution shift; and (I3) implicit test leakage. The former two issues lead to poor generalizability to the test data, while the latter leads to overestimation of the model's performance and directly impacts the deployment of GNNs. To address these issues in a systematic way, we introduce an effective and efficient GNN training framework, SpotTarget, which leverages our insight on low-degree nodes: (1) at training time, it excludes a (training) edge to be predicted if it is incident to at least one low-degree node; and (2) at test time, it excludes all test edges to be predicted (thus, mimicking real scenarios of using GNNs, where the test data is not included in the graph). SpotTarget helps researchers and practitioners adhere to best practices for learning from graph data, which are frequently overlooked even by the most widely-used frameworks. Our experiments on various real-world datasets show that SpotTarget makes GNNs up to 15x more accurate in sparse graphs, and significantly improves their performance for low-degree nodes in dense graphs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jing Zhu, Yuhang Zhou, Vassilis N. Ioannidis, Shengyi Qian, Wei Ai, Xiang Song, Danai Koutra. 2023-06-01. Pitfalls in Link Prediction with Graph Neural Networks: Understanding the Impact of Target-link Inclusion & Better Practices. https://doi.org/10.1145/3616855.3635786

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG