SoGCN: Second-Order Graph Convolutional Networks
Abstract
Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) with multi-hop aggregation is more expressive than one-hop GCN but suffers from higher model complexity. Finding the shortest aggregation range that achieves comparable expressiveness and minimizes this side effect remains an open question. We answer this question by showing that multi-layer second-order graph convolution (SoGC) is sufficient to attain the ability of expressing polynomial spectral filters with arbitrary coefficients. Compared to models with one-hop aggregation, multi-hop propagation, and jump connections, SoGC possesses filter representational completeness while being lightweight, efficient, and easy to implement. Thereby, we suggest that SoGC is a simple design capable of forming the basic building block of GCNs, playing the same role as $3 3$ kernels in CNNs. We build our Second-Order Graph Convolutional Networks (SoGCN) with SoGC and design a synthetic dataset to verify its filter fitting capability to validate these points. For real-world tasks, we present the state-of-the-art performance of SoGCN on the benchmark of node classification, graph classification, and graph regression datasets.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 6 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
OGB
| # | Model | ROC-AUC ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Multi-RF Fusion with Multi-GNN Blending | 0.8476
±0.0002 | |
| 2 | HyperFusion | 0.8475
±0.0003 | |
| 3 | PAS+FPs | 0.8420
±0.0015 | |
| 9 | GatedGCN | 0.8090
±0.0160 | |
| 109 | GIN | 0.7780
±0.0182 best reported | best at pub: Parameterized Hypercomplex Graph Neural Networks for Graph Classification (2021) best today: GRPE: Relative Positional Encoding for Graph Transformer (2022) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 136 | SoGCN | 0.7726
±0.0085 | This paper |
| 137 | 4th-Order GCN | 0.7724
±0.0121 | This paper |
| 147 | 6th-Order GCN | 0.7710
±0.0072 | This paper |
| 154 | GCNII | 0.7704
±0.0103 | This paper |
| 158 | ARMA | 0.7691
±0.0175 | This paper |
| 160 | GraphSAGE | 0.7690
±0.0136 | prev best: Do We Need Anisotropic Graph Neural Networks? (ICLR 2021) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 184 | GCN | 0.7630
±0.0030 | |
| 197 | vanilla GCN | 0.7606
±0.0097 | This paper |
| 296 | APPNP | 0.6800
±0.0136 | This paper |
| # | Model | ROC-AUC ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LD | 0.8942
±0.0007 | |
| 2 | X_WO/LD | 0.8915
±0.0012 | |
| 3 | X_PNE | 0.8894
±0.0014 | |
| 14 | APPNP | 0.8450 best reported | |
| 16 | GraphSAGE | 0.8430 best reported | best at pub: Training Graph Neural Networks with 1000 Layers (ICML 2021) |
| 17 | GCN | 0.8320 | |
| 32 | SoGCN | 0.7928
±0.0047 | This paper |
| 36 | 4th-Order GCN | 0.7895
±0.0057 | This paper |
| 38 | 6th-Order GCN | 0.7861
±0.0042 | This paper |
| 51 | GIN | 0.7677
±0.0020 | This paper |
| 55 | GCNII | 0.7564
±0.0048 best reported | best today: Latent-Hysteresis Graph ODEs: Modeling Coupled Topology-Feature Evolution via Continuous Phase Transitions (2026) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 63 | vanilla GCN | 0.7216
±0.0055 | This paper |
GNNBenchmark
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Schrödinger | 0.9913
±0.0004 | |
| 2 | CNN | 0.9907
±0.0007 | |
| 3 | MPNN | 0.9895
±0.0006 | |
| 11 | GatedGCN | 0.9855
±0.0002 best reported | best at pub: Formatting Instructions for ICLR 2021 Conference Submissions (2020) |
| 32 | GIN | 0.9648
±0.0025 | prev best: Rethinking pooling in graph neural networks (NeurIPS 2020) |
| 83 | SoGCN-GRU | 0.9773
±0.0016 | This paper |
| 86 | GAT | 0.9755
±0.0003 best reported | best at pub: Formatting Instructions for ICLR 2021 Conference Submissions (2020) |
| 95 | GraphSAGE | 0.9731
±0.0010 | prev best: Rethinking pooling in graph neural networks (NeurIPS 2020) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 97 | SAGE | 0.9731
±0.0010 | |
| 106 | SoGCN | 0.9678
±0.0011 | This paper |
| 117 | Vanilla GCN + GRU | 0.9602
±0.0009 | This paper |
| 126 | MLP | 0.9534
±0.0014 | |
| 129 | 3WLGNN | 0.9507
±0.0096 | This paper |
| 137 | MoNet | 0.9111 best reported | best today: Graph-Coupled Oscillator Networks (ICML 2022) |
| 139 | vanilla GCN | 0.9071
±0.0022 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RandAlign | 0.7942
±0.0007 | |
| 2 | differential encoding | 0.7907
±0.0027 | |
| 3 | PPGT | 0.7856
±0.0070 | |
| 62 | GatedGCN | 0.7133
±0.0039 best reported | best at pub: Formatting Instructions for ICLR 2021 Conference Submissions (2020) |
| 86 | SoGCN-GRU | 0.6821
±0.0027 | This paper |
| 92 | GraphSAGE | 0.6690
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-pass Filtering: Graph Convolutional Networks with Automatic Filtering (2021) |
| 97 | SoGCN | 0.6634
±0.0015 | This paper |
| 101 | GAT | 0.6611
±0.0098 best reported | best at pub: Formatting Instructions for ICLR 2021 Conference Submissions (2020) |
| 103 | MoNet | 0.6591
±0.0251 | Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 104 | SAGE | 0.6577
±0.0031 | |
| 109 | GIN | 0.6510
±0.0050 best reported | best at pub: Beyond Low-pass Filtering: Graph Convolutional Networks with Automatic Filtering (2021) |
| 118 | Vanilla GCN + GRU | 0.6133
±0.0085 | This paper |
| 123 | 3WLGNN | 0.5917
±0.0159 | This paper |
| 126 | MLP | 0.5634
±0.0018 | |
| 129 | vanilla GCN | 0.5571
±0.0038 | This paper |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GRPE-Small | 0.8159
±0.0019 | |
| 2 | TANGO-GPS | 0.8011
±0.0014 | |
| 3 | GRIT | 0.8003
±0.0028 | |
| 54 | GatedGCN | 0.7608
±0.0020 best reported | best at pub: Formatting Instructions for ICLR 2021 Conference Submissions (2020) best today: GRPE: Relative Positional Encoding for Graph Transformer (2022) |
| 67 | GAT | 0.7059
±0.0045 best reported | best at pub: Formatting Instructions for ICLR 2021 Conference Submissions (2020) |
| 70 | GCN | 0.6903
±0.0137 | |
| 73 | SoGCN | 0.6817
±0.0116 | This paper |
| 74 | SoGCN-GRU | 0.6799
±0.0262 | This paper |
| 76 | MoNet | 0.6641
±0.0054 best reported | |
| 79 | GIN | 0.6472
±0.0155 best reported | |
| 80 | GraphSAGE | 0.6388
±0.0011 best reported | best today: IJCAI--23 Formatting Instructions (IJCAI 2023) |
| 85 | 3WLGNN | 0.6040
±0.0042 | This paper |
| 89 | Vanilla GCN + GRU | 0.5793
±0.0017 | This paper |
| 93 | vanilla GCN | 0.5344
±0.0203 | This paper |
| 114 | MLP | 0.2097
±0.0000 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DeepGraph (48) | 0.9066
±0.0006 | |
| 2 | GRIT (our run) | 0.9041
±0.0023 | |
| 3 | GRIT 2-QiQRW | 0.9016
±0.0045 | |
| 66 | GatedGCN | 0.8651
±0.0008 best reported | best at pub: Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks (NeurIPS 2020) best today: IJCAI--23 Formatting Instructions (IJCAI 2023) |
| 81 | SoGCN | 0.8573
±0.0004 | This paper |
| 82 | SoGCN-GRU | 0.8571
±0.0005 | This paper |
| 85 | 3WLGNN | 0.8566
±0.0035 | This paper |
| 88 | GCN | 0.8561
±0.0003 | |
| 89 | GIN | 0.8559
±0.0001 | This paper |
| 91 | MoNet | 0.8548
±0.0004 | prev best: Factorizable Graph Convolutional Networks (NeurIPS 2020) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 107 | GAT | 0.7827
±0.0019 best reported | Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 117 | Vanilla GCN + GRU | 0.7019
±0.0022 | This paper |
| 119 | vanilla GCN | 0.6388
±0.0007 | This paper |
| 123 | MLP | 0.5052 | |
| 124 | GraphSAGE | 0.5052
±0.0000 | This paper |
