WWW 2021

GBK-GNN: Gated Bi-Kernel Graph Neural Networks for Modeling Both Homophily and Heterophily

Lun Du, Xiaozhou Shi, Qiang Fu, Xiaojun Ma, Hengyu Liu, Shi Han, Dongmei Zhang

Main figure for 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.

Proposed method: GBK-GNN

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

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #207 vs paper #289 82 places worse
0.8540 ±0.0040
best reported
actual #207 vs paper #289 82 places worse
paper 0.8410 ±0.0112

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8410 ±0.0112 Δ at pub 0.0120 Δ today 0.0130
724
MLP
0.7768
#ModelAccuracy ↑Paper
1
CNA
0.9575 ±0.0058
2
IS-GIB
0.9390 ±0.0187
3
EERM
0.9112 ±0.0145
35
GAT
actual #35 vs paper #474 439 places worse
0.8080 ±0.0026
best reported
actual #35 vs paper #474 439 places worse
paper 0.7189 ±0.0140
paper 0.7189 ±0.0140 Δ at pub 0.0824 Δ today 0.0891
36
GCNII
actual #36 vs paper #176 140 places worse
0.7511 ±0.0118
actual #36 vs paper #176 140 places worse
paper 0.7511 ±0.0118

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.7511 ±0.0118 Δ at pub 0.0135 Δ today 0.0565
44
GCN
actual #44 vs paper #195 151 places worse
0.8033 ±0.0088
best reported
actual #44 vs paper #195 151 places worse
paper 0.7467 ±0.0133
paper 0.7467 ±0.0133 Δ at pub 0.0476 Δ today 0.0566
61
GraphSAGE
actual #61 vs paper #120 59 places worse
0.7923 ±0.0053
best reported
actual #61 vs paper #120 59 places worse
paper 0.7672 ±0.0064
paper 0.7672 ±0.0064 Δ at pub 0.0251
64
GBK-GNN
0.7918 ±0.0096
This paper
88
Geom-GCN
actual #88 vs paper #125 37 places worse
0.7799 ±0.0115
best reported
actual #88 vs paper #125 37 places worse
paper 0.7628 ±0.0206

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7628 ±0.0206 Δ today 0.0171
111
H2GCN
actual #111 vs paper #883 772 places worse
0.7711 ±0.0157
best reported
actual #111 vs paper #883 772 places worse
paper 0.4370 ±0.0024
259
SAGE
0.7361 ±0.0190
350
MLP
0.7289 ±0.0010
389
GIN
actual #389 vs paper #684 295 places worse
0.7250 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #389 vs paper #684 295 places worse
paper 0.6808 ±0.0057
paper 0.6808 ±0.0057 Δ at pub 0.0442
458
CPGNN
actual #458 vs paper #639 181 places worse
0.7200 ±0.0050
best reported
actual #458 vs paper #639 181 places worse
paper 0.6941 ±0.0045
paper 0.6941 ±0.0045 Δ today 0.0259
531
DNN
0.7130 ±0.0194
This paper

Heterophilic Graphs

#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #40 vs paper #352 312 places worse
0.9189 ±0.0393
best reported
actual #40 vs paper #352 312 places worse
paper 0.7297 ±0.0453
paper 0.7297 ±0.0453 Δ at pub 0.1189 Δ today 0.1892
53
GraphSAGE
actual #53 vs paper #383 330 places worse
0.9000 ±0.0365
best reported
actual #53 vs paper #383 330 places worse
paper 0.7097 ±0.0446
paper 0.7097 ±0.0446 Δ at pub 0.1146 Δ today 0.1903
189
SAGE
0.8269
211
GAT
actual #211 vs paper #606 395 places worse
0.8162 ±0.0645
best reported
actual #211 vs paper #606 395 places worse
paper 0.4194 ±0.0533
best at pub: Graph Pointer Neural Networks (AAAI 2021)
paper 0.4194 ±0.0533 Δ at pub 0.1751 Δ today 0.3968
227
GBK-GNN
0.8108 ±0.0488
This paper
309
CPGNN
0.7568 ±0.0512
This paper
326
GIN
actual #326 vs paper #618 292 places worse
0.7460 ±0.0080
best reported
actual #326 vs paper #618 292 places worse
paper 0.2903 ±0.0442
337
DNN
0.7419 ±0.0522
This paper
415
Geom-GCN
actual #415 vs paper #415
0.6760
best reported
actual #415 vs paper #415
paper 0.6757 ±0.0535

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.6757 ±0.0535 Δ at pub 0.0003
#ModelAccuracy ↑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
actual #68 vs paper #282 214 places worse
0.8623 ±0.0471
best reported
actual #68 vs paper #282 214 places worse
paper 0.7027 ±0.0499
paper 0.7027 ±0.0499 Δ at pub 0.1189 Δ today 0.1596
138
SAGE
0.8269
157
GraphSAGE
actual #157 vs paper #278 121 places worse
0.8196 ±0.0739
best reported
actual #157 vs paper #278 121 places worse
paper 0.7097 ±0.0476

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.7097 ±0.0476 Δ at pub 0.0498 Δ today 0.1099
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
actual #342 vs paper #438 96 places worse
0.6412
best reported
actual #342 vs paper #438 96 places worse
paper 0.5405 ±0.0387
paper 0.5405 ±0.0387 Δ at pub 0.0676 Δ today 0.1007
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere