skip to main content
10.1145/3543507.3583403acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hyperbolic Geometric Graph Representation Learning for Hierarchy-imbalance Node Classification

Published:30 April 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning unbiased node representations for imbalanced samples in the graph has become a more remarkable and important topic. For the graph, a significant challenge is that the topological properties of the nodes (e.g., locations, roles) are unbalanced (topology-imbalance), other than the number of training labeled nodes (quantity-imbalance). Existing studies on topology-imbalance focus on the location or the local neighborhood structure of nodes, ignoring the global underlying hierarchical properties of the graph, i.e., hierarchy. In the real-world scenario, the hierarchical structure of graph data reveals important topological properties of graphs and is relevant to a wide range of applications. We find that training labeled nodes with different hierarchical properties have a significant impact on the node classification tasks and confirm it in our experiments. It is well known that hyperbolic geometry has a unique advantage in representing the hierarchical structure of graphs. Therefore, we attempt to explore the hierarchy-imbalance issue for node classification of graph neural networks with a novelty perspective of hyperbolic geometry, including its characteristics and causes. Then, we propose a novel hyperbolic geometric hierarchy-imbalance learning framework, named HyperIMBA, to alleviate the hierarchy-imbalance issue caused by uneven hierarchy-levels and cross-hierarchy connectivity patterns of labeled nodes. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the superior effectiveness of HyperIMBA for hierarchy-imbalance node classification tasks.

References

  1. Réka Albert and Albert-László Barabási. 2000. Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality. Physical review letters 85, 24 (2000), 5234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Réka Albert, Hawoong Jeong, and Albert-László Barabási. 1999. Diameter of the world-wide web. nature 401, 6749 (1999), 130–131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 5439 (1999), 509–512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Silvere Bonnabel. 2013. Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 58, 9 (2013), 2217–2229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Eliav Buchnik and Edith Cohen. 2018. Bootstrapped graph diffusions: Exposing the power of nonlinearity. In SIGMETRICS. 8–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. James W Cannon, William J Floyd, Richard Kenyon, Walter R Parry, 1997. Hyperbolic geometry. Flavors of geometry 31 (1997), 59–115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaidi Cao, Colin Wei, Adrien Gaidon, Nikos Arechiga, and Tengyu Ma. 2019. Learning imbalanced datasets with label-distribution-aware margin loss. In NeurIPS, Vol. 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ines Chami, Zhitao Ying, Christopher Ré, and Jure Leskovec. 2019. Hyperbolic Graph Convolutional Neural Networks. In NeurIPS. 4869–4880.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Deli Chen, Yankai Lin, Guangxiang Zhao, Xuancheng Ren, Peng Li, Jie Zhou, and Xu Sun. 2021. Topology-Imbalance Learning for Semi-Supervised Node Classification. NeurIPS 34 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yin Cui, Menglin Jia, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yang Song, and Serge Belongie. 2019. Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples. In CVPR. 9268–9277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sergey N Dorogovtsev, Alexander V Goltsev, and José Ferreira F Mendes. 2002. Pseudofractal scale-free web. Physical review E 65, 6 (2002), 066122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Xingcheng Fu, Jianxin Li, Jia Wu, Qingyun Sun, Cheng Ji, Senzhang Wang, Jiajun Tan, Hao Peng, and S Yu Philip. 2021. ACE-HGNN: Adaptive Curvature Exploration Hyperbolic Graph Neural Network. In ICDM. IEEE, 111–120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Octavian-Eugen Ganea, Gary Bécigneul, and Thomas Hofmann. 2018. Hyperbolic Neural Networks. In NeurIPS. 5350–5360.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. 2017. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In ICML. 1263–1272.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo Haixiang, Li Yijing, Jennifer Shang, Gu Mingyun, Huang Yuanyue, and Gong Bing. 2017. Learning from class-imbalanced data: Review of methods and applications. Expert systems with applications 73 (2017), 220–239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. In NeurIPS. 1024–1034.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Haibo He and Edwardo A Garcia. 2009. Learning from imbalanced data. IEEE Transactions on knowledge and data engineering 21, 9 (2009), 1263–1284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. W Sean Kennedy, Iraj Saniee, and Onuttom Narayan. 2016. On the hyperbolicity of large-scale networks and its estimation. In Big Data. IEEE, 3344–3351.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Dmitri Krioukov, Fragkiskos Papadopoulos, Maksim Kitsak, Amin Vahdat, and Marián Boguná. 2010. Hyperbolic geometry of complex networks. Physical Review E 82, 3 (2010), 036106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Jianxin Li, Xingcheng Fu, Qingyun Sun, Cheng Ji, Jiajun Tan, Jia Wu, and Hao Peng. 2022. Curvature Graph Generative Adversarial Networks. In WWW. 1528–1537.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jianxin Li, Qingyun Sun, Hao Peng, Beining Yang, Jia Wu, and S Yu Phillp. 2023. Adaptive Subgraph Neural Network with Reinforced Critical Structure Mining. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2023).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In ECCV. 2980–2988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Vivi Nastase, Rada Mihalcea, and Dragomir R Radev. 2015. A survey of graphs in natural language processing. Natural Language Engineering 21, 5 (2015), 665–698.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Maximilian Nickel and Douwe Kiela. 2017. Poincaré Embeddings for Learning Hierarchical Representations. In NeurIPS. 6338–6347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yann Ollivier. 2009. Ricci curvature of Markov chains on metric spaces. Journal of Functional Analysis 256, 3 (2009), 810–864.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Fragkiskos Papadopoulos, Maksim Kitsak, M Ángeles Serrano, Marián Boguná, and Dmitri Krioukov. 2012. Popularity versus similarity in growing networks. Nature (2012), 537–540.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Joonhyung Park, Jaeyun Song, and Eunho Yang. 2021. GraphENS: Neighbor-Aware Ego Network Synthesis for Class-Imbalanced Node Classification. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hongbin Pei, Bingzhe Wei, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Yu Lei, and Bo Yang. 2020. Geom-GCN: Geometric Graph Convolutional Networks. In ICLR. OpenReview.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Hongbin Pei, Bingzhe Wei, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang, Yu Lei, and Bo Yang. 2020. Geom-gcn: Geometric graph convolutional networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Erzsébet Ravasz and Albert-László Barabási. 2003. Hierarchical organization in complex networks. Physical review E 67, 2 (2003), 026112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mengye Ren, Wenyuan Zeng, Bin Yang, and Raquel Urtasun. 2018. Learning to reweight examples for robust deep learning. In ICML. PMLR, 4334–4343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu Rong, Wenbing Huang, Tingyang Xu, and Junzhou Huang. 2019. Dropedge: Towards deep graph convolutional networks on node classification. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Benedek Rozemberczki, Carl Allen, and Rik Sarkar. 2021. Multi-scale attributed node embedding. Journal of Complex Networks 9, 2 (2021), cnab014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Prithviraj Sen, Galileo Namata, Mustafa Bilgic, Lise Getoor, Brian Galligher, and Tina Eliassi-Rad. 2008. Collective classification in network data. AI magazine 29, 3 (2008), 93–93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Oleksandr Shchur, Maximilian Mumme, Aleksandar Bojchevski, and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Pitfalls of graph neural network evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05868 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jayson Sia, Edmond Jonckheere, and Paul Bogdan. 2019. Ollivier-ricci curvature-based method to community detection in complex networks. Scientific reports 9, 1 (2019), 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Jaeyun Song, Joonhyung Park, and Eunho Yang. 2022. TAM: Topology-Aware Margin Loss for Class-Imbalanced Node Classification. In ICML. PMLR, 20369–20383.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Qingyun Sun, Jianxin Li, Hao Peng, Jia Wu, Yuanxing Ning, Philip S Yu, and Lifang He. 2021. Sugar: Subgraph neural network with reinforcement pooling and self-supervised mutual information mechanism. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 2081–2091.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Qingyun Sun, Jianxin Li, Beining Yang, Xingcheng Fu, Hao Peng, and Philip S Yu. 2023. Self-organization Preserved Graph Structure Learning with Principle of Relevant Information. In AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Qingyun Sun, Jianxin Li, Haonan Yuan, Xingcheng Fu, Hao Peng, Cheng Ji, Qian Li, and Philip S Yu. 2022. Position-aware Structure Learning for Graph Topology-imbalance by Relieving Under-reaching and Over-squashing. In CIKM. Association for Computing Machinery, 1848–1857.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Yanmin Sun, Andrew KC Wong, and Mohamed S Kamel. 2009. Classification of imbalanced data: A review. International journal of pattern recognition and artificial intelligence 23, 04 (2009), 687–719.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Alexandru Tifrea, Gary Bécigneul, and Octavian-Eugen Ganea. 2019. Poincare Glove: Hyperbolic Word Embeddings. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Jake Topping, Francesco Di Giovanni, Benjamin Paul Chamberlain, Xiaowen Dong, and Michael M Bronstein. 2022. Understanding over-squashing and bottlenecks on graphs via curvature. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE.Journal of machine learning research 9, 11 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Alexei Vázquez, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, and Alessandro Vespignani. 2002. Large-scale topological and dynamical properties of the Internet. Physical Review E 65, 6 (2002), 066130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Petar Velickovic, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph Attention Networks. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Yu Wang, Charu Aggarwal, and Tyler Derr. 2021. Distance-wise Prototypical Graph Neural Network in Node Imbalance Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.12035 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ze Ye, Kin Sum Liu, Tengfei Ma, Jie Gao, and Chao Chen. 2019. Curvature graph network. In ICLR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Jinze Yu, Jiaming Liu, Xiaobao Wei, Haoyi Zhou, Yohei Nakata, Denis Gudovskiy, Tomoyuki Okuno, Jianxin Li, Kurt Keutzer, and Shanghang Zhang. 2022. Cross-Domain Object Detection with Mean-Teacher Transformer. In ECCV.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ziwei Zhang, Peng Cui, and Wenwu Zhu. 2020. Deep learning on graphs: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hyperbolic Geometric Graph Representation Learning for Hierarchy-imbalance Node Classification
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            WWW '23: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023
            April 2023
            4293 pages
            ISBN:9781450394161
            DOI:10.1145/3543507

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 30 April 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format