Few-shot graph link prediction with domain adaptation
Authors: Hao Zhu
Mahashweta Das
Mangesh Bendre
Fei Wang
Hao Yang
Soha Hassoun
Venue: ICLR 2022 Submitted (2022)
Keywords: link prediction
few-shot learning
domain adaptation

Abstract: Real world link prediction problem often deals with data coming from multiple imbalanced domains. Similar problems in computer vision are often referred to as Few-Shot Learning (FSL) problems. However, for graph link prediction, this problem has rarely been addressed and explored. In this work, we propose an adversarial training based modification to the current state-of-the-arts link prediction method to solve this problem. We introduce a domain discriminator on pairs of graph-level embedding. We then use the discriminator to improve the model in an adversarial way, such that the graph embeddings generated by the model are domain agnostic. We test our proposal on 3 benchmark datasets. Our results demonstrate that, when domain differences exist, our method creates better graph embeddings that are more evenly distributed across domains and generates better prediction outcomes. 

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
FEW-SHOT GRAPH LINK PREDICTION WITH DOMAIN ADAPTATION
Anonymous authors Paper under double-bling review
ABSTRACT
Real-world link prediction problems often deal with data from multiple domains, where data may be highly skewed and imbalanced. Similar problems in computer vision are often referred as Few-Shot Learning (FSL. problems. However, for graph link prediction, this problem has rarely been addressed and explored. In this work, we propose an adversarial training-based framework that aims improving link prediction for highly skewed and imbalanced graphs. We introduce domain discriminator on pairs of graph-leve embedding. We then use the discriminator improve the model in an adversarial way, such that the graph embeddings gener- ated by the model are domain agnostic. We test our proposal on three benchmark datasets. Our results demonstrate that when domain differences exist, our method creates better graph embeddings that are more evenly distributed across domains and generate better prediction outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Real-world link prediction problems often deal with graphs with nodes from various domains. For example, we can separate the items from a product purchase network into multiple domains such as books, electronics, luxury items. A financial transaction network can have data coming from various countries. Different domains may have different distributions, but more importantly, domains are often not balanced in most real-world datasets. For example, we may expect to see hundreds of thousands of nodes for books but only a few hundred for luxury items. There might also be billions of financial transactions in developed countries but much fewer in developing countries. We observe similar phenomenon even in academic graph datasets. For example, in the ogbn-arxiv (Hu et al. (2020) dataset, which includes pre-prints from 40 computer science subjects, papers from the most popular subject take up to 16.13% of all the nodes. In contrast, the least represented subject only has 0.02% of the data.
Training graph models with imbalanced data without precaution significantly downgrade model performances, especially for domains with fewer samples. The training process is overwhelmed by the popular domains that have abundant data. These popular domains noise, hampering the model to fit for small domains effectively. Despite the prevalence of this problem, current research on this topic is not adequate (Zhao et (2021): Shi al. (2020)).
To improve model performance for small domains, we propose to train domain agnostic embedding that we can use for downstream tasks. The intuition that if the latent representation learned by the graph model does not contain any domain-specins
information, and therefore is domain aggnosii, becomes more robust to domains with fewer data and even novel domains. We propose to use adversarial learning and force the graph model to learn domain agnostic embeddings.
Our idea of building nomain-agnostic features across domains aligns with the few-shot learning (FSL) problem in computer vision (CV). FSL (Fei-Fei et al. (2006); Fink (2005)) refers to the type of ML algorithm that works with limited labeled data. A common FSL technique to learn domain- agnostic features first (with/without external data) and then let the model converge fast on to domains with limited shots (Long & Wang (015)). It relatively easier for CV tasks because stacked convolutional neural networks used in CV usually leam features in general-to-speet sp-eccifcc sequence. In contrast, as stacking graph neural networks (GNN) layers only explore larger neighborhoods, the same method couldn't be applied directly to graph data.

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
In addition, the CV literature has explored the idea of using adversarial learning to build better domain agnostic features. Domain-Adverssarial Neural Network (DANN) (Ganin et al. (2016)) first introduces the idea of using discriminator to align and separate semantic probability distributions. Further research (Motiian et al. (2017) shows that it helps reduce the numher of samples needed for each domain/class. Essentially, our work follows this path but further improves it with the enclosing subgraph idea to achieve better performances for graph link predictions.
We find that the method of extracting enclosing subgraphs, proposed in the SEAL model Zhang & Chen (2018) suits well for our setting because it not only boosts the number of trainable samples but also gives them different topological features. is similar what "cropping" does for images. CV Research has shown that data augmentation method, such as cropping (Qi et al. (2018); [Zhang et al. (018b)); introduces invariances for models to capture and effective for FSI. problems.
We summarize our main contributions as follows:
We propose the idea of learning Homain-agnoste graph embedding to improve the quality of link prediction by using adversarial learning and enclosing subgraphs.
We define the concepts of "shots" for graph data, making it significantly easier train, describe, and analyze graphs with multiple imbalanced domains.
We use t-SNE plots to demonstrate the effectiveness our method. It also allows practi- tioners to decide the expected gain from proposed ideas.
RELATED WORKS
2.1
LINK PREDICTION
Link prediction focuses on predicting future or missing links between pair of nodes. The current state-of-the-arts link prediction method is SEAL (Zhang & Chen (2018)). The core idea of SEAL is to extract enclosing subgraphs for a set of sampled positive and negative links. To be more specific, a positive link pair of nodes connected with an edge, and a negative link is a pair of nodes that are not connected. An enclosing subgraph is the union set of ht-hpp neighboring nodes of the pair of nodes. This prta-preprocesssin step lets SEAL transform the link prediction problem to (sub)graph classification problem. It uses graph neural networks (GNNs) to generate the graph embedding, which feeds into a classifier and generates new predictions. Other than SEAL, Graph (GAE, Kipf & Welling (2016)) is alternative approach. GAE works by generating node embedding for all nodes and then model the link likelihood based on the concatenated node embedding vectors for any node pairs. However, recent researches have shown this method heavily relies on the assumption that similar nodes have similar connections. In addition to these GNN-based methods, traditional heuristic methods, such as common neighbor (CN) and Adamic-Adat (AA), provide a completely different alternative. Given pair of nodes, these non-parametric methods describe the topological structure of the surrounding neighborhood with a score. The advantage that these methods could be used directly without training, but it's challenging to utilize node/edge features with these methods.
2.2 FEW-SHOT LEARNING AND DOMAIN ADAPTATION
Few-shot learning is special type of machine learning problem, which aims obtaining good learning performances when supervised evidence information is limited (Wang et al. (2020). Com- mon FSL methods include data augmentation (cropping. rotating, generative models, etc) and meta- learning (Sun et al. 2019)). Domain Adaptation is type of Transfer Learning (TL.) technique. It focuses on transferring learned knowledge from one domain to another while maintaining good per- formances. The core idea of domain adaptation is to learn domain invariant representation, which is usually done by maximizing mutual information (Hjelm et al. (2019)) or training in an adversarial network (Goodfellow et al. (2014)).
Some recent works focus on the problem of few-shot learning with domain adaptation. The work from Motiaan et al. (207)) also uses adversarial networks the solution, but it introduced a 4-class confusion matrix classifier as the discriminator. The work from Zhao et al. (2020) explicitly added source/target per-class separation before doing embedding feature learning with domain adaptation.
2

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Posttive
Negative
1
$/3
S 1.2
Graph from domain
S.7
(GNN Pooling)
S
S
4
h1 1.3
57
S/
5.7
Graph from domain
S/as
S/.6
S/
Figure 1: Few-shot Link Prediction with Domain Adaptation. Colors denote different domains. The positive/negative outcome is denoted by texture. Solid boxes are positive links, and slash- textured boxes are negative links. Similar to SEAL, we start by extracting enclosing subgraphs around positive/negative links in graphs. A pair of enclosing subgraphs are sent to model g. com- posed of Graph Neural Network and graph pooling layer, generate pair of graph embeddings. Discriminator (D) is set up on the side to determine whether this pair of graph embeddings come from the same domain. The pair of graph embeddings also enter in model to classify link existence.
2.3 ADVERSARIAL LEARNING
To learn domain agnostic models, we need to ensure that the learned graph embedding does not contain domain-specific information. achieve this, commonly used technique is adversarial learning, in which two models are trained against each other and play minimax game based on game theory. For example, the popular Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) (Goodfellow al.) (0144)) adversarial learning helps generators build more realistic images by having discriminator that identifies whether an image is synthetic or real. There have been prior works done on using adversarial training graph-related tasks. The work from Wang al. (0088) uses GAN to improve various graph-related tasks, such as link prediction and node property prediction, by generating "fake" graphs. The work from [ei al. (2019) also uses GAN to solve the challenging temporal link prediction problem for weighted dynamic networks.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION
We define the few-shot link prediction problem with imbalanced domains follows: in given graph space S, we have access to graphs from m (m E N, m 2 2) number of domains. Different domains may have variations in their marginal distributions. Among the m domains, m m-10 (k E N+) domains have & number of small graphs, which we define as graph "shots". The last domain only has shot. Our objective is learn link prediction model that leverages the domain differences improve the performance in the domain with shot of data.
3.2 NOTATIONS
terms graph-related notations, each graph is denoted by G (V, d,,,, where V the set of vertices, E' is the set of edges and is the type of domain, which could be one-hot encoded vector with one extra digit representing any unseen domain. In the adjacency matrix A of G, A,, = if edge (u,
E, and otherwise Au, O. For any node u, use Auu) to denote the set of neighboring nodes of u. In addition, we use superscript as a shorthand to denote the domain class. For example, for graph from domain we would denote it as G¹.
3

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
3.3 DOMAINS
For our setting, we have total of m domains and each domain has one or more graphs or subgraphs D [G 1m where D denotes the 4tth domain and graph Gf is realization of random variable G The effective of our method compared baseline is based the assumption that the distribution of the random variable is different across different domains p(g*) + p(g*) lifk' k.k
3.4 LINK PREDICTION
Here is the general form of any link prediction models: given (u, G), where and v are pair of nodes graph G, the likelihood of having a link between u and e, Va.. modeled by function (u,v, U, G) Va,.- This function could be trained with union set of positive and negative samples. Positive samples are sampled from existing edges while negative samples are built with node pairs with u and v', of $ (u).
Based on the ideas from the SEAL framework, the first step is to extract an h-hop enclosing subgraph around edge (u, v). We denote this subgraph Sa, and the process of generating the enclosing subgraph as s(u, U, G) = Su.v- Function could be rewritten as f Su, Vu,..
In general, f is composed with two separated functions g and and could be written as f g c. Function generates the graph embedding vector Sa, + lss... Function e takes in the graph embedding and generates the prediction yu,c.
Here we have the supervised loss function.
Las(g, c) B[e(c(g(SSa vu,,))
Σ Vu. log(c(g(Su..))) + (1-yu,e) loog(1 - c(g(Su,w))
N
where E is the statistical expectation of any loss function f. In this case, is the standard binary cross-entropy loss.
The input of the discriminator is pair graph embedding h and h² generated by g. As stated superscript denote the domain information. The objective is to determine
above, here whether these two subgraphs are from the same domain. Since we know from which graph G these subgraphs generated, and know the domain information of each G, ground truth d' The loss function here could be binary cross-entropy as well. An alternative design is let the discriminator predict the exact domain that the graph embedding is from. We select the current one because it is easier to apply it to novel domains.
easily get the
Lase E(((D(g(S))
d'd)
Given the two loss functions above, we could get the total loss for the input of a pair of subgraphs from domain i and j. Since our objective is to make sure the graph embedding does not contain domain-specific information, we would like to minimize the supervised training loss while maxi- mizing the discriminator's loss.
Ciotal c) E E(cl9(S), Ve.w) ΣTh ET (DDgg())))) )), d'2),
where a hyperparameter to adjust the weight of the discrimination term compared to super- vised loss.
4 EXPERIMENTS
4.1 DATASETS
In this study, we compared the model performances using three different datasets, including ogbn- products, ogbg-ppa and the protein-protein interaction (PPI) dataset.
4

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Both the gebn-proddcts and ogbg-ppa ppa dataset comes from the Stanford Open Graph Benchmark (Hu et al. (2020)) There is a specific category of benchmark dataset on OGB for link prediction. However, we could not use those link preedicciiioon benchmark datasets they do not contain do- main information. Therefore, we select oghn-products and ogbg-ppa from the node/graph property prediction task and convert them into link prediction tasks. 'he protein- interaction (PPI) dataset comes from the GNN benchmark dataset (Dwivedi et (2020)) and originally published to- gether with the GraphSage HaperHHamilton et (2018)). Its original purpose also node property prediction and we re- purpose it as a link uin-prediction problem.
ogbn-products The edges, representing the Amazon product co- purchhchh network in 47 categories. Node feature is a 100-dimension word embedding vector extracted from product description. During the data prepro- cessing, we select 23 domains with more than 10,000 nodes and split the nodes into 23 subgraphs, each of which represents a single domain. Then, within each domain, we randomly selected 40% of the nodes as the test data and used the remaining 60% to generate training "shots". To ensure the robustness of our results, we run the random sampling 10 times to generate 10 sets of indepen- dent experiment data. In each experiment, within each domain, start with random node, run Breadth- first search (BFS) until the cumulated amount of nodes exceed 5% of all the nodes in the training graph (in other words, 3% in the original domain subgraph). All the nodes visited by BFS are considered as a "shot". Then we start from another random node from the rest of the graph, repeat the BFS process until a total of 10 shots are generated for each domain. To build the few-shot learning with an imbalanced domain setting, for 22 out of 23 domains, we arrange all 10 shots to the training set and for the last domain, we arrange shot to the training set. The training set is then randomized and fed into the model. The evaluation is done for the imbalanced domain only.
dataset is a single graph with 2,449,029 nodes and 61,859,140
ogbg-ppa The ogbg-ppa dataset include 158,100 graphs representing the
association network in 1581 different species that cover 37 broad taxonomic groups The average number of nodes is 243.4 4 and the average number of edges 2,266.1. Edges in this dataset are associated with 7-dimensional feature vector. We chose to pick broad taxonomic groups as our criteria to separate domains. We select 50 graphs from each domain as our test set. For our training set, we selected 10 graphs from each domain to build the data for one experiment and we created 10 independent experiments to keep our result robust. Similar with what we do for ogbn-products, we put 1-shot of data for the evaluation domain into the training set and 10-shot for all the other domains. Note that the graphs in ogbg-ppa do not have node feature data. Instead, only edge feature data is available.
PPI The PPT dataset is another protein-related dataset. It includes 24 graphs representing the human protein-protein interaction network in 24 types of human tissues. The average number of nodes is 2372.7 and the average number of edges is 68508.7. 7. Each node has 50 features. We follow the same procedure as we use for the ogbn-products dataset to split test and train, generate shots and produce experiment data.
4.2 BASELINE METHODS
We compared the performances of our proposed methods with several commonly used link- prediction methods, including SEAL, Graph AutoEncoder (GAE) and heuristic methods including Common Neighbor (CN), Adamic-Adar (AA) and Personalized PageRank (PPR).
SEAL SEAL is the current state-of-the-arr method for link prediction and provides a lot of inspi- ration to this work. The core idea is to create enclosing subgraphs around a selection of positive and negative node pairs. The distance between the target pair of nodes and all the other nodes is calculated within each subgraph. Then, SEAL uses a GNN to compute graph-level embedding for each subgraph and use the graph embedding to predict the probability of having a link between each node pair.
GAE GAE employs a standard GCN to generate updated node embedding. For each positive and negative node pair, the node embedding vectors for the pair of nodes concatenated and then used to predict the probability of having a link.
CN As a heuristic method, there is no training process needed for CN. The common neighbor method computes the total number of common neighbors between any node pairs and uses the score to predict the probability of having a link. The mathematical formula for CN is usually denoted by
5

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
CN ((=))
AA Adamic-Adar is another heuristic method. Unlike CN, instead of looking into the first-order neighbor of a node pair, AA pays attention to the second-order neighbor of the node pair. Its math- ematical formula could be denoted by
AA = -=EN(() [X]]]
PPR Personalize PageRank computes the stationary distribution of a random walker starting a and ending at with restarts. Here since we are focusing on bidirectional graphs, we need to compute the scores for both from to y and from y to The mathematical formula is denoted by the following equation, where stands for the stationary distribution.
PPR quy + qyz
4.3 EXPERIMENT CONFIGURATION
All the heuristic methods (CN, AA & PPR) can be used directly without training. To ensure the evaluation fair, we tested all six methods on the same set node pairs for evaluation.
All three NN-based methods (our method, SEAL & GAE) requires training and negative node pairs. To ensure a fair comparison, we trained all these three methods on the same sets of node pairs. As mentioned before, generated 10 sets of experiment data for training. The final results for these NN-based methods are average performances in all 10 experiments. In addition, reduce the size of training data, sample proportion of positive node pairs and then sample the same amount of negative node pairs for each dataset. The exact proportions for each dataset is consistent across all three NN-based methods and is in-fact determined based on the number of edges and the size of features.
selection of positive
In all three GNN-based methods, we use a three layers GCN with 32 neurons on each layer. Classic GCN models only take node features, and it is what we use for ogbn-products and PPI. However, as mentioned earlier, the ogbg-ppa sabg--ppaoo dataset only has edge features. To utilize edge features, we modified the message passing rule such that the message includes the concatenated node feature, which in this case the calculated distance value between each node and the target node pair, and edge features. In our method and SEAL, where graph level pooling is needed, we use the pooling method proposed DGCNN (Zhang et al. (2088a) 8a)), which composes of sort pooling layer followed by two-layer convolution network. In this experiment, use the sort pooling layer to pull out the sorted features from the top 10 nodes (sorted by the largest value of each node).
For our method and SEAL, the prediction of link probability starts with 32-length long graph embedding vector. After the pooling layer, we send the graph embedding to a dense layer with 32 neurons and another dense layer to generate the output. For GAE, the prediction of link probability requires the node level features of the two target nodes. In our implementation, after the GNN step. simply look up the node embedding vectors for the target nodes and concatenate the two vectors. The merged embedding is then sent to the same MLP as described earlier to generate the prediction.
In our methods, we use a three layer MLP with 32 neurons as the discriminator for the graph em- bedding. The input of the discriminator is the concatenation of two random graph embedding and the target of the discriminator is to predict whether these two embedding come from the same do- main. In the actual implementation, because we train the model using mini-batch of 32, this could be easily done by separating one batch of 32 embedding vectors to two groups of 16 vectors and comparing between these two groups
In addition, we implement 20 iteration warm-up stage for both our method and SEAL. In the warm- up stage, the models are trained without discriminator. The purpose of setting up the warm-up stage to make it easier to train the adversarial model. As reported in literature, adversarial models are harder to train. we train the model and the discriminator together from the very beginning, a bad initialization which will lead to the "model collapsing". A 20 step warm-up stage may not always bring the model to the best spot but offers good starting point in most cases.
the model may make it too difficult for the model to confuse the discriminator,

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
ogbn-products
ogbg-ppa
Adversarial, alpha
Domain
Adversarial. alpha
Adversarial, alpha
Baseline SEAL
Adversarial. alpha
Demaln
Adversarial. alpha
Adversarial, alpha
Baseline SEAL
85.0
87.5
90.0
92.5
75
80
85
90
80 Average RDC-AUC Score on test set
Figure 2: Comparison of average test ROC-AUC performances each dataset. The colored dots represent the mean performance of 10 experiments and the error bars represent the standard deviation.
All the models are trained with a learning rate at 0.0001 with L2 regularization at 0.001 for 250 epochs. The discriminators are trained with learning rate 0.00001. All the experiments trained and tested on a NVIDIA V100 card.
4.4 EXPERIMENT RESULTS
In proposed method, is important hyperparameter because it controls the impact of the discriminator on the model. this experiment, we select a from 1, 3. and 5 and we compare the results with all of our baseline methods. The results are displayed in Table T and Figure
Table 1: Comparison of Test ROC-AUC Scores with Baseline Methods
Adversarial Methods
SEAL
GAE
CN
AA
PPR
==
a=5
Domain 1
88.8
89.7+:3.6
90.9-13.5
88.4+4.0
52.0++4.0
45.4
45.9
44.6
Domain
89.8
89.9::2.5
90.0+13.0
87.7+3.9
58.4+14.0
33.4
30.1
43.6
ogbg-ppa
Domain
89.4+6.1
87.8+66.6
86.2+-10.8
88.5+5599
52.7+6.8
39.2
39.1
38.2
Domain 2
90.6-16.44
90.6++4.9
87.2+33.4
90.6+
65.1455.4
53.7
52.2
57.3
Domain 1
79.114.22
78.913.3
79.012.7
77.112.7
55.013.2 50.5+3.11
57.0
63.0
43.5
Domain
82.9+2.4
83.0++3.9
81.143.8
81.6+3.4
53.5
57.5
67.0
Results from trainable NN models averages standard deviation) of experiments.
Results from heuristic methods direct output the
First, we observe that compared with the vanilla SEAL method, in most cases, the proposed adver- sarial methods yield better performances over underrepresented domains. The average improvement around 1.5% but the levels of improvement vary across different datasets. In the ogbn-product and PPI dataset, we observe much better performance from the adversarial models but in the ogbg-pu ppa dataset, the improvement not very significant. We think reason that the feature distributions in the ogbg-ppa ppa dataset are highly similar across domains. In this case, the impact of the lack of training data for one specific domain is very small. Therefore, the discriminator here cannot generate any benefits. We will discuss the details of our reasoning later.
The GAE method did not do well under this experiment. Unlike SEAL, GAE lacks the key node feature describe the distance between each node to the target link. Under this few-shot learning setting, the limited number of nodes for training further restricts GAE's ability to efficiently train the model.
The performances of the heuristic methods are low as well. One possible explanation is that the link prediction task in these three experiment dataset heavily depends node/edge features. Since all

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
A. PPI, Baseline SEAL
B. PPI, Adversarial,
-50
50
50
50
-00
50
-50
-30
-50
-50
-50
-50
-50
50
55
50
-50
0
50
50
50
55
50
-50
50
Figure 3: Comparison of t-SNE visualization of graph embedding for all 24 domains in the PPI dataset. The distribution of graph embeddings generated by baseline SEAL vary across domains while the graph embeddings generated by the adversarial method are domain-invariant.
55
-50
-50
-50
-50
-50050
-50050
50050
-500
-50050
500050
-500 50
5000
Figure Domains in the ogbg-ppa dataset are already similar with baseline SEAL
three heuristic methods only use graph topological structure data, they lack enough information to make good predictions.
Impact Adversarial Training on Graph Embedding
To understand the real impact of the adversaria training on graph embedding, we use t-SNE (ann der Maaten Hinton (0088) to reduce the dimension of graph embedding and visualize them in 2-D space. Figure 3 shows the changes of graph embedding for all 24 domains in PPI. From the figure, we can see the dots generated by the adversarial method are more evenly distributed across the 2-D space and this observation further confirms that our proposed method is working as expected.
In addition, by inspecting the t-SNE plot (Figure 4 for the oghg-ppa dataset, we find that with the baseline SEAL method, the distribution of embedding points among different domains in ogbg-ppo ppa are already evenly distributed. It shows that there are few inter-domain differences in this dataset. Although the protein graphs come from different organisms, it could be the that all the graphs are assembled in a similar way, so they are topologically similar. It could also be possible that the 7 7-dimension edge feature extracted for this dataset not reflecting domain differences.
In fact, comparing Figure D and Figure 4 shows that the t-SNE visualization of the graph embed- ding vector is good tool for machine learning practitioners to decide when adopt the proposed
8

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
approach. If there distinguishable domain differences across domains based the t-SNE plot, the proposed method will likely yield some improvements.
Training Curves, Run time and Impact of a
We also look into the impact of the adversarial design on the training curves. Figure shows the smoothed training curves of 10 experiments with the ogbn-products dataset on domain 2. The shaded area represent the standard error. Note that we excluded the performances during the 20-step warm- up stage
the most important area. As presented in Figure [5] the baseline performance quickly drops after 50 iterations even with the use of L.2 regularization. This mostly due to the fact that the evaluation domain underrepresented in training data (recall that in the training data, we have shot of data in the evaluation domain and 10 shots of data for every other domain). By enforcing the graph embedding from different domains to be similar using adversarial training, the graph embedding generated by our method is more likely to work well with the evaluation domain. Therefore we see the performances from all three adversarial experiments reach better best performances compared with the baseline SEAL method.
ROC-AUC
0.900
Category
0.875
Baseline
0.850
Adversarial, alpha
Adversarial, alpha =
0.825
Adversarial, alpha
0
50
100
150
200
250
Steps
Smoothed Testing ROC-AUC Score over training
Figure 5: Comparison of Smoothed Training Curves over 10 Experiments
In addition, by increasing the value of we increase the impact of the discriminator of the target model. In this case, a = 3 seems to provide the best performance. However, if we look at the average best performances, the best is in fact 5. A closer look into each individual training curve tells us that some of the best models were trained when a = However, the large a value also makes the model less stable and it's more likely Therefore, we conclude that when domain differences exist, higher impact of the discriminator helps the model reach better performances but makes it more difficult train. Eventually, there is sweet spot to keep the balance between performance and model stability.
the model collapse during the training process.
Figure also tells us that compared with the baseline SEAL method, our method takes more steps to converge. Increasing the value of a increases the steps to converge as well. At the same time, also takes more time to train the adversarial model because the computation of graph embedding needs to happen two times collect gradients to train the target model and the discriminator. On average, takes 1.134s to finish one training step the ogon-products dataset using baseline SEAL. on an NVIDIA V100 graphic card, but it takes 1.406s (24.0 % increase) to train the network using adversarial method.
CONCLUSION
In this work, we propose an adversarial training-based approach to solve the few-shot graph link pre- diction problem. Compared with the state-of-arts method and other baselines, our method achieves better performance on underrepresented domains, especially when domain variance is not trivial. We further examine the changes of the graph embeddings using t-SNE and reveal the root this improvement. At the same time, by showing the t-SNE visualizations for cases when the proposed method doesn't 't provide benefits, we show that t-SNE is a very efficient tool for practitioners to determine benefit of our method.

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
REFERENCES
Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, Chaitanya K Joshi, Thomas Laurent, Yoshua Bengio, and Xavier Bresson. Benchmarking graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00982, 2020.
Li Fei-Fei, R. Fergus, and P. Perona. One-shot learning of object categories. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 28(4):594-611, 2006. doi: 10.1109/PAM1.2006..77
Michael Fink. Object classification from a single example utiliizing class relevance metrics. In L. Saul, Y. Weiss, and L. Bottou (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 17. MIT Press, 2005. URL http:///ee.oooooonn...o.o.aeeera
Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, François Laviolette, Mario Marchand, and Victor Lempitsky. Domain-adversarial training of neural net- works, 2016.
lan J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley. Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks, 2014.
William L. Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. Inductive representation learning on large graphs, 2018
Devon Hjelm, Alex Fedorov, Samuel Lavoie-Marchildee Karan Grewal, Phil Bachman, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization, 2019.
Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovee. Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs. arXiv preprint 1rXiv:2005000683 2020.
Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. Variational graph auto-encoders, 2016.
Kai Lei, Meng Qin, B. Bai, Gong Zhang, and Min Yang. Gen-gan A non-linear temporal link prediction model for weighted dynamic networks. IEEE INFOCOM 2019 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pp. 388-396, 2019.
Mingsheng Long and Jianmin Wang. Learning transferable features with deep adaptation networks. CoRR, abs/1 502.02791, 2015.
02791
Saeid Motian, Quinn Jones, Seyed Mehdi Iranmanesh, and Gianfranco Doretto. Few-shot adver- sarial domain adaptation, 2017.
Hang Qi, Matthew Brown, and David G. Lowe. Low-shot learning with imprinted weights. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Puttern Recognition, pp. 5822-5830, 2018. doi: 10. N0.1109/CVPR.2218..00 8.00600.
Min Shi, Yufei Tang, Xingquan Zhu, David Wilson, and Jianxun Liu. Multi-class imbalanced graph convolutional network learning. In Christian Bessiere (ed.). Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-20, pp. 2879-2885. International Joint Conferences Artificial Intelligence Organization, 7 2020. doi: 20.24963/iccai22220//99
URL httpt:://doo www.ddi.......oooooooooooooooo.. 10. (4996///icaa. 2020/398 Main track.
Qianru Sun. Yaoyao Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, and Bernt Schiele. Meta-transfer learning for few-shot learning, 2019.
Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research, (86)22579-2605 2008. URL
WaadermmatteDD html
Hongwei Wang. Jia Wang, Jialin Wang, Miao Zhao, Weinan Zhang, Fuzheng Zhang, Xing Xie, and Minyi Guo. Graphgan: Graph repressntatiion learning with generative adversarial nets. 2018, URL
https: wwwww//www//////// aaai wtto whtp:/ppppp/a//aea
10

---

Under review as a conference paper at ICLR 2022
Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James Kwok, and Lionel M. Ni. Generalizing from few examples: A survey on few-shot learning, 2020.
Muhan Zhang and Yixin Chen. Link prediction based on graph neural networks, 2018.
Muhan Zhang, Zhicheng Cui, Marion Neumann, and Yixin Chen. An end-to-end deep learning architecture for graph classification. AAAI, 2018a.
Yabin Zhang, Hui Tang, and Kui Jia. Fine-grained visual categorization using meta-learning opti- mization with sample selection of auxiliary data, 2018b.
An Zhao, Mingyu Ding, Zhiwu Lu, Tao Xiang, Yulei Niu, Jiechao Guan, Ji-Rong Wen, and Ping Luo. Domain-adaptive few-shot learning, 2020.
Tianxiang Zhao, Xiang Zhang, and Suhang Wang. Graphsmote: Imbalanced node classification on graphs with graph neural networks. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Mar 2021. doi: 011114//343796.3444477777 URL http:
//dx.doi.orgu 2ttp......org1111114444433333663 3441722


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "nMhi_-KgOT", "reviewer": "Reviewer_1WRx", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 3, "confidence": 5, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "Strength:\n\nThis paper introduces adversarial learning (which is widely used in UDA methods) to few-shot graph link prediction problems to learn domain-invariant representations.\n\nWeakness: \n1.\tThe motivation of this work should be further justified. In few-shot learning, we usually consider how to leverage a few instances to learn a generalizable model. This paper defines and creates a few-shot situation for graph link prediction, but the proposed method does not consider how to effectively use “few-shot” and how to guarantee the trained model can be generalized well to new tasks with 0/few training steps. \n2.\tThe definition of “domain” in this paper is unclear. For instance, why select multiple domains from the same single graph in ogbn-products? Should we consider the selected domains as “different domains”?\n3.\tThe application of adversarial learning in few-shot learning is confusing. Adversarial learning in domain adaptation aims to learn domain-invariant representations, but why do we need such kind of representation in few-shot learning?\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "This paper proposes a method for few-shot graph link prediction by using a domain discriminator. The motivation is to learn domain-invariant graph-level representations. The authors also introduce the concept of “shot” in the graph. The proposed method outperforms baselines on three different datasets.", "summary_of_the_review": "This paper is not well motivated and needs further justification.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "3: Some of the paper’s claims have minor issues. A few statements are not well-supported, or require small changes to be made correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "hQbXsGpOwrk", "reviewer": "Reviewer_XgHj", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "Strength\nThe proposed domain adaptive method of using adversarial training is well described.\nThe experimental results support the effectiveness of the proposed method.\nThe T-SNE plots add good insights of the proposed method, can facilitate its applicability.\n\nWeakness\nThe paper hasn’t discussed the key difference between the proposed method and the DANN (Domain-Adversarial NN). It made it harder to assess the novelty of the proposed method. The paper seems like a direct application of DANN on a new problem, link prediction using GNN.\n\nThe paper’s experimental settings might not be close to a real world scenario. The paper selects 10 samples for other domains and only 1 sample for an imbalanced domain. How likely is this a real world scenario? This simple scenario makes it hard to justify the universal applicability of the proposed method.\n", "summary_of_the_paper": "The paper proposes a method to resolve the issue of domain imbalanced dataset in graph link prediction. The proposed method uses adversarial training to generate graph embeddings that are domain agnostic in order to facilitate transfer learning cross domains. The paper uses T-SNE plot of graph embedding to gain insights of the best scenarios for applying the proposed methods. The paper compares the proposed method with heuristics-based and GNN-based domain adaptation methods using experiments.\n", "summary_of_the_review": "The paper should clearly claim its novelty and run more experiments that are closer to real-world scenarios. I am going with a rating to marginally reject the paper, but willing to change the rating if authors can address the above concerns.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "3: Some of the paper’s claims have minor issues. A few statements are not well-supported, or require small changes to be made correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "QAvD6Gx1Aw", "reviewer": "Reviewer_Vi6R", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 8, "confidence": 5, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "Strengths: Application of few shot learning methodology to predicting graph links is novel. Will have applications beyond the benchmark datasets used in the paper.\nWeaknesses: I like this paper and so do not see any obvious weaknesses.", "summary_of_the_paper": "This paper presents a novel approach to  link prediction methods in graph representation of imbalanced domains using adversarial training. the result is an improved domain-agnostic graph embeddings. The approach takes is similar to few-shot learning that is popular in computer vision. Discussions on how to define shots for graphs, and how to design experiments for addressing imbalanced domains contribute to the novelty of the paper. Results on two Stanford Open Graph Benchmarks and the PPI dataset are given.\n", "summary_of_the_review": "A novel application of few shot learning and domain adaptation to machine learning from graph representations.", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "4: All of the claims and statements are well-supported and correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "4: The contributions are significant, and do not exist in prior works.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "4: The contributions are significant, and do not exist in prior works."}, "extra_text": {}}, {"review_id": "4qwP6Dl5fi2", "reviewer": "Reviewer_YcHW", "summary": "", "questions": "", "limitations": "", "rating": 5, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "main_review": "#### Strength\n\n- The paper first proposed a few-shot link problem with imbalanced domains.\n- The proposed method achieves good performance compared to baselines and the authors use t-SNE plots as a rule of thumb for practitioners to decide whether to incorporate the proposed method.\n- Visual explanations of the source of improvements also validate the proposed approach.\n\n#### Weakness\n\n- Use adversarial training in graph or link prediction is not novel. There is a lot of prior work which is not discussed in the paper. \n\n[1] Lei, K., Qin, M., Bai, B., Zhang, G., and Yang, M., 2019, April. Gcn-gan: A non-linear temporal link prediction model for weighted dynamic networks. In IEEE INFOCOM 2019-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (pp. 388-396). IEEE.\n[2] Wang, H., Wang, J., Wang, J., Zhao, M., Zhang, W., Zhang, F., Xie, X. and Guo, M., 2018, April. Graphgan: Graph representation learning with generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 32, No. 1).\n\n- The proposed few-shot link prediction setting is kind of arbitrary, what is the application and motivation behind this setting? why the last domain has to be 1 shot? \n\n- The model is a three layers GCN with 32 neurons. there are no ablations for the hyper-parameters for the model. ", "summary_of_the_paper": "This paper proposed adversarial training for few-shot link prediction problems. The authors introduce a domain discriminator on pairs\nof graph-level embedding and address the issue of few-shot learning in graph data. The proposed method is tested on 3 benchmark datasets and achieves good performance compared to the prior approaches.", "summary_of_the_review": "The paper proposed an interesting few-shot link prediction problem. However, important related work is not discussed in the paper. More work should stress the difference between the proposed method and prior work. ", "strength_and_weaknesses": "", "limitations_and_societal_impact": "", "review_text": "", "extra_scores": {"correctness": "3: Some of the paper’s claims have minor issues. A few statements are not well-supported, or require small changes to be made correct.", "technical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel.", "empirical_novelty_and_significance": "2: The contributions are only marginally significant or novel."}, "extra_text": {}}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper has been reviewed by four expert reviewers who gave diverging scores. The three negative reviewers have provided significant constructive feedback. The main criticism is the lack of novelty and clarity in the paper. The authors have submitted their rebuttal which did not improve the scores of these reviewers. After the discussion phase, the paper did not obtain any support for acceptance and stayed under the acceptance threshold. Following the reviewers' recommendation, the meta reviewer recommends rejection.
Decision: Reject