Graph Neural Network Training Systems: A Performance Comparison of Full-Graph and Mini-Batch
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained significant attention in recent years due to their ability to learn representations of graph structured data. Two common methods for training GNNs are mini-batch training and full-graph training. Since these two methods require different training pipelines an...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained significant attention in recent
years due to their ability to learn representations of graph structured data.
Two common methods for training GNNs are mini-batch training and full-graph
training. Since these two methods require different training pipelines and
systems optimizations, two separate classes of GNN training systems emerged,
each tailored for one method. Works that introduce systems belonging to a
particular category predominantly compare them with other systems within the
same category, offering limited or no comparison with systems from the other
category. Some prior work also justifies its focus on one specific training
method by arguing that it achieves higher accuracy than the alternative. The
literature, however, has incomplete and contradictory evidence in this regard.
In this paper, we provide a comprehensive empirical comparison of
representative full-graph and mini-batch GNN training systems. We find that the
mini-batch training systems consistently converge faster than the full-graph
training ones across multiple datasets, GNN models, and system configurations.
We also find that mini-batch training techniques converge to similar or often
higher accuracy values as full-graph training ones, showing that mini-batch
sampling is not necessarily detrimental to accuracy. Our work highlights the
importance of comparing systems across different classes, using
time-to-accuracy rather than epoch time for performance comparison, and
selecting appropriate hyperparameters for each training method separately. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2406.00552 |