GBK-GNN: Gated Bi-Kernel Graph Neural Networks for Modeling Both Homophily and Heterophily
Abstract
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are widely used on a variety of graph-based machine learning tasks. For node-level tasks, GNNs have strong power to model the homophily property of graphs (i.e., connected nodes are more similar), while their ability to capture heterophily property is often doubtful. This is partially caused by the design of the feature transformation with the same kernel for the nodes in the same hop and the followed aggregation operator. One kernel cannot model the similarity and the dissimilarity (i.e., the positive and negative correlation) between node features simultaneously even though we use attention mechanisms like Graph Attention Network (GAT), since the weight calculated by attention is always a positive value. In this paper, we propose a novel GNN model based on a bi-kernel feature transformation and a selection gate. Two kernels capture homophily and heterophily information respectively, and the gate is introduced to select which kernel we should use for the given node pairs. We conduct extensive experiments on various datasets with different homophily-heterophily properties. The experimental results show consistent and significant improvements against state-of-the-art GNN methods.
Benchmark Results
Tested on 4 datasets 8 baseline values reported too low
Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).
Classic
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GraphSAGE+CNA | 0.9418
±0.0033 | |
| 2 | GCN+CNA | 0.9366
±0.0048 | |
| 3 | TransformerConv | 0.9350
±0.0058 | |
| 21 | GCN | 0.9004 | |
| 207 | Geom-GCN | 0.8540
±0.0040 best reported | best at pub: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) best today: The Expressive Power of Graph Neural Networks: A Survey (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 724 | MLP | 0.7768 |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CNA | 0.9575
±0.0058 | |
| 2 | IS-GIB | 0.9390
±0.0187 | |
| 3 | EERM | 0.9112
±0.0145 | |
| 35 | GAT | 0.8080
±0.0026 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) best today: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) |
| 36 | GCNII | 0.7511
±0.0118 | prev best: Extract the Knowledge of Graph Neural Networks and Go Beyond it: An Effective Knowledge Distillation Framework (WWW 2021) best today: Feature Expansion for Graph Neural Networks (ICML 2023) Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted. |
| 44 | GCN | 0.8033
±0.0088 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) |
| 61 | GraphSAGE | 0.7923
±0.0053 best reported | best at pub: Gophormer: Ego-Graph Transformer for Node Classification (2021) |
| 64 | GBK-GNN | 0.7918
±0.0096 | This paper |
| 88 | Geom-GCN | 0.7799
±0.0115 best reported | best today: Graph Neural Reaction Diffusion Models Submitted to the editors June 2023. Accepted in March 2024. (2024) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 111 | H2GCN | 0.7711
±0.0157 best reported | |
| 259 | SAGE | 0.7361
±0.0190 | |
| 350 | MLP | 0.7289
±0.0010 | |
| 389 | GIN | 0.7250
±0.0080 best reported | best at pub: Towards Self-Explainable Graph Neural Network (2021) |
| 458 | CPGNN | 0.7200
±0.0050 best reported | best today: Graph Contrastive Learning under Heterophily via Graph Filters (2023) |
| 531 | DNN | 0.7130
±0.0194 | This paper |
Heterophilic Graphs
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9672
±0.0147 | |
| 2 | DoG | 0.9660
±0.0210 | |
| 3 | GPF-plus | 0.9583
±0.0419 | |
| 34 | MLP | 0.9230
±0.0070 | |
| 40 | H2GCN | 0.9189
±0.0393 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: GrokFormer: Graph Fourier Kolmogorov-Arnold Transformers (ICML 2024) |
| 53 | GraphSAGE | 0.9000
±0.0365 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: Graph Neural Networks Need Cluster-Normalize-Activate Modules (NeurIPS 2024) |
| 189 | SAGE | 0.8269 | |
| 211 | GAT | 0.8162
±0.0645 best reported | best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021) best today: Equivariance Everywhere All At Once: A Recipe for Graph Foundation Models (2025) |
| 227 | GBK-GNN | 0.8108
±0.0488 | This paper |
| 309 | CPGNN | 0.7568
±0.0512 | This paper |
| 326 | GIN | 0.7460
±0.0080 best reported | |
| 337 | DNN | 0.7419
±0.0522 | This paper |
| 415 | Geom-GCN | 0.6760 best reported | best at pub: Non-Local Graph Neural Networks (2020) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| # | Model | Accuracy ↑ | Paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P^2GNN | 0.9541
±0.0272 | |
| 2 | ACM-GCN | 0.9480
±0.0380 | |
| 3 | RF-GCN | 0.9429 | |
| 24 | MLP | 0.9136
±0.0070 | |
| 68 | H2GCN | 0.8623
±0.0471 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: $P^2$GNN: Two Prototype Sets to boost GNN Performance (2026) |
| 138 | SAGE | 0.8269 | |
| 157 | GraphSAGE | 0.8196
±0.0739 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: Heterophily-Aware Graph Attention Network (2023) Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance. |
| 246 | GBK-GNN | 0.7427
±0.0218 | This paper |
| 283 | CPGNN | 0.7027
±0.0512 | This paper |
| 304 | DNN | 0.6774
±0.0368 | This paper |
| 342 | Geom-GCN | 0.6412 best reported | best at pub: Graph Neural Networks Inspired by Classical Iterative Algorithms (ICML 2021) best today: Steering Graph Neural Networks with Pinning Control (2023) |
